Overseas Research Students

Lord Hunt of Chesterton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will increase the funding, via the Higher Education Funding Council, of exceptionally talented overseas research students to ensure the continuing excellence and international competitiveness of scholarships and research in leading United Kingdom universities.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, decisions on funding for the overseas research student awards scheme are determined by the Higher Education Funding Council for England. The scheme's budget for the 2002–03 academic year will be a maximum of £12 million, compared with £11.2 million last year. Up to 850 new awards and 1,400 renewals will be made under the scheme to individual research students.

Lord Hunt of Chesterton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, are the Government aware that without further expansion of the current scheme or an equivalent one, and without improved work permit arrangements, leading UK universities which are losing UK university research students will not be able to offer places to the ablest scholars from around the world, who will clearly be deflected to the United States?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, we are very concerned to ensure that we have as many opportunities as possible for students to come here from overseas to engage in research. My noble friend will be aware of the initiative to that effect launched by the Prime Minister. I am pleased that the number of international higher education students in this country is increasing dramatically. Noble Lords will be pleased to know that the non-EU total for international students has increased this year to 141,000, compared with 110,000 in 1996–97. In looking at our strategy for higher education, the valid points which my noble friend has made are taken into account.

Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, while I support the concept behind the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Chesterton, I hope that the Minister believes it is important that, when these students have completed their studies here and obtained their degrees or done their post-doctoral work, they will return to their own countries and have a strong input into the development of excellence in science there. Is that not important?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the noble Lord makes a very important point. It is essential that, as part of the global scientific community, we ensure that we have the right kind of research and those opportunities to collaborate. Those students benefit this country, and they should be able to do the same for their own nation.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I should first declare an interest as a governor of the LSE and as vice-chairman of the Open University. In view of the mounting financial crisis in universities, does the Minister agree that if our universities are to maintain the standards of excellence necessary to attract the outstanding students for whom this ORS scheme is designed, the Government clearly have to set free the universities not only to increase their fees significantly, but of course to retain the proceeds?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the noble Baroness raises an important point. I am sure that noble Lords are fully aware of the current review of student finance. They may also be aware from this morning's press of the major strategy paper that we shall publish in the autumn. These questions are very much part of the Government's thinking.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, is the noble Baroness able to confirm or deny the story in The Times this morning that education is a big winner in the Comprehensive Spending Review?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, that is a great question for the noble Lord's birthday, which I understand is today. However, I am unable to confirm or deny that. Noble Lords may have noticed that I have my fingers crossed.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, the Minister will be aware of the prestigious Marie Curie scholarships which are granted by the European Commission. To what extent is Britain receiving its fair share of these young scholars to work in our laboratories, and to what extent are our own scholars gaining this opportunity to work in laboratories abroad?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, as I knew that the noble Baroness is interested in this issue, I was careful to ensure that I had the information. The United Kingdom has the highest take-up rate among those receiving awards under the Marie Curie scheme. The noble Baroness will be very pleased to hear that the United Kingdom is the number one destination for award recipients. Some 30 per cent come here, with 17 per cent going to France and 10.5 per cent to Germany. I have been unable to ascertain the flow of traffic in the opposite direction, but I shall of course write to her when I have that information.

Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, will the Minister soon be reviewing the salary level of all those working in higher education, to ensure that our students do not become overseas students in the near future?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the noble Lord raises the important issue of academic pay. Noble Lords will not only have heard me and others talk about that issue; they will also be aware of the additional funding for higher education pay—£170 million for 2003–04, for example—that we made available in the last spending review. We are also considering introducing a scheme of "golden hellos" for new staff in shortage subjects. As noble Lords will be aware, we expect to announce those plans in the autumn. We very clearly examine what is happening to academic salaries around the globe. Research by organisations such as the Association of Commonwealth Universities and the US National Center for Education Statistics shows that, although there are disparities in some cases, academic salary levels are roughly the same.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the immense value of the Chevening scholarship scheme—which I realise is not sponsored by her department—in bringing the younger generation of potential world leaders to British universities? Can she assure us that that scheme will be maintained and, if possible, expanded further? A number of my former students are now rapidly rising up the political, administrative and other ladders in their own countries. That is a long-term investment for Britain.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, indeed, I can give that commitment. I assure the noble Lord that we are keen to ensure that we have long-term relationships with other countries. I understand from my noble friend that we have increased the Chevening scholarship.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I declare an interest as a professor emeritus in an American university. Does the Minister accept that the real comparison has to be between the salaries paid in the United States and those paid in this country as most able graduates who are in the market for academic jobs are attracted to the United States rather than to anywhere else? Does she not agree that salaries in the United States are of the order of one-and-a-half to two times greater in real terms than in this country and that there is a serious continuing brain drain to American universities?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I have looked carefully at the figures for American universities. As the noble Baroness will be aware—she deservedly holds a post at a prestigious American university—salaries at American universities vary considerably. The noble Baroness makes an important point. The average professor at certain American universities receives a salary well in excess of 100,000 US dollars. As I say, there is great variety in that area. We consider carefully what we should be doing in that regard across the whole field of higher education.

British Museum Great Court

Baroness Strange: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How much the refurbishing of the British Museum's new Great Court cost, and how great are the annual costs for maintaining this museum.

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, The museum's Great Court project cost a total of £99.6 million. The Millennium Commission contributed £30 million, the Heritage Lottery Fund £15.4 million, the Garfield Weston Foundation £20 million and the remaining £34.2 million was funded by private sponsorship. The museum's operating costs in 2000–01 were £51.4 million and their estimated outturn in 2001–02 is £57.8 million.

Baroness Strange: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her courteous and informative reply. Does she agree—as I am sure she does—that the British Museum is a splendid, world-renowned and great building? It is the British Museum. That does seem a great deal of money but the Great Court is absolutely marvellous in every way and something of enduring value. Could she perhaps tell us by contrast how much the Millennium Dome, which is beautiful but ephemeral, cost?

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, says, the British Museum is a great institution with fantastic collections, marvellous scholarship, wonderful visitor facilities and extremely interesting exhibitions. It is extremely important to Britain's cultural life and it is important that it should continue to operate as a successful institution. I do not believe that the noble Baroness's question about the Dome has very much to do with the future of the British Museum.

Lord Sheldon: My Lords, I declare my interest as joint president of the All-Party Arts and Heritage Group. Has my noble friend seen the letter from Sir Patrick Cormack, the chairman of that group, explaining the problems of the British Museum? It is probably the greatest museum in the world. This autumn Neil MacGregor will move from the National Gallery to become the Director of the British Museum. We must encourage him to use his talents in the best way by ensuring that there will be sufficient funds not to close any of the great rooms and to be able to maintain the standards of that great institution. Will my noble friend continue to show her enthusiasm for the British Museum which she has shown in the past?

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, my enthusiasm for the British Museum knows no bounds. I shall certainly continue to try to demonstrate it. I have had a number of discussions with Neil MacGregor who will, as my noble friend said, become the Director of the British Museum. He has some extremely exciting and interesting plans for it. As regards its funding, the Government have provided a 4.7 per cent real-terms increase in funding for the museum since 1998. Clearly, I am unable to say what the future holds for its funding until the outcome of the spending review.

Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, in view of these great financial difficulties, will the British Museum sell off any items from its collection, as I am afraid that it has done sometimes in the past in the case of the Benin Bronzes, many of which were not duplicates?

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I do not believe that the British Museum has any intention of selling off any of its collection. Indeed, it is proscribed by law from doing so, with the exception of duplicates. I understand that the Benin Bronzes that were given to the Government of Nigeria to allow them to establish a museum for them were all duplicates.

Viscount Falkland: My Lords, is not the problem with the British Museum somewhat more profound than that of the criticism it has received about the Great Court, its cost, its magnificent roof and the other improvements? Those at the museum must have been disappointed about the kind of stone that was used, which was not that which was ordered, but that pales into insignificance beside the fact that, as has been said, it is one of the greatest museums in the world. However, in a way, through no fault of its own, it not quite caught up with the demands of the 21st century. After all, it was a 19th century institution. It maintains high standards but it is finding it difficult to balance its books. Will the Government give an undertaking that they will not only support it financially, but also support it in trying to develop a new strategy so that it attracts more people through its portals and thus generates more income to pay its staff, among other things?

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, was absolutely right to imply that the Great Court is not the cause of the museum's present financial problems. The Great Court has been enormously successful as an exciting piece of architecture and in providing additional facilities for the museum. I believe that it has also helped to attract more visitors. The museum's financial problems are a result of lower than expected visitor numbers, which are partly due to foot and mouth and September 11th, a downturn in spend per head from American visitors in particular and a poorer than expected trading performance in general. The Government will work with the museum to help it to deal with those problems. I am glad to report that visitor numbers are now on the increase.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords—

Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, would my noble friend comment on—

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I think that it is our turn. I thank the noble Lord.
	In view of the fact that the British Museum is one of the museums that attracts most overseas visitors, will the Government continue to refuse to allow it to charge for entry to its ordinary exhibitions?

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the Government are convinced that the policy of free entry to our great national museums and galleries is absolutely right. That policy has led to a 60 per cent increase in the numbers of people visiting our great museums and galleries since it was introduced in December last year and to a 65 per cent increase in the numbers of people coming from social groups that do not normally visit museums. We intend to maintain what has been a hugely successful policy.

Bypasses: Funding

Lord Marlesford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will consider introducing a scheme whereby those individuals whose quality of life, or whose property's value, would be enhanced by the provision of a bypass for their community would be enabled to make a voluntary financial contribution to public funds to defray part of the cost of providing such a bypass.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we have no plans to introduce such a scheme.

Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I am not surprised that that is a fact. However, does the Minister understand my surprise that Her Majesty's Treasury should not welcome the idea of private contributions to the public purse, especially when those contributions are for public purposes and because in this situation, although the more affluent contribute, the less affluent will also enjoy? Does he recognise that this country urgently needs more bypasses for people whose quality of life has been made miserable by the increase in traffic, particularly on trunk roads? My suggestion is one means whereby more bypasses could be made available. Will he at least have another look at it?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my first Answer was an answer of fact, as the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, knows. Of course our minds are never closed to any new ideas. If the noble Lord would like to prepare a paper on the subject putting forward his arguments, I am sure that John Spellar, the Minister responsible for roads, would be interested to read it and, no doubt, to meet him to discuss it. He will be aware, as we all are, of the potential difficulties. Any road scheme benefits some people and disbenefits others. The thought of private money coming in to pay for an enhanced quality of life and property values for one person, although that might have the reverse effect for somebody else, is clearly a potential difficulty.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the main obstacle to building such bypasses is the time that it takes to consult, plan and to get the line of route orders, which usually take up to 15 years? Will he also tell us what the Government's policy is towards the problem that besets us all; that is, road traffic congestion?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, part of the answer is one that I perhaps should have given to the second question of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford; that is, that we recognise the benefit of bypasses. Of the 56 road plans in the current programme, about half are bypasses.
	I shall answer the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, more directly. Since the roads review in 1998, we have very much speeded up the process of approval for new road schemes. In the old days, under the previous government, the road programme was something of a wish list and it could indeed take 15 or 20 years before anything was done. Now, because we have set more precise criteria, nothing goes into the road programme until there is a real desire to complete it and the money has been allocated.

Baroness Nicol: My Lords, is there not a danger in the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, that the priorities might be distorted in terms of providing bypasses? If one group can provide some of the money, that might attract the available money from the Government or from local government, although the priority for that bypass might not be as great as the priority for another scheme that was squeezed out?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is one of the issues that the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, will no doubt address in the paper that he will write for the Minister responsible for roads. Imagine, for example, that someone proposed a bypass around Woodbridge in Suffolk and that there were questions about whether it should be on the east or the west side. Would that be decided on the basis of which side paid more in contributions?

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, can we take it that the noble Lord's answers are an acceptance of the fact that financial contributions to the Treasury are already at a more than adequate level?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not think that the Treasury would ever agree with that! On the issue of road projects, to which I am sure Lord Peyton wished to refer—I am sure that he would not wish to stray from the Question on the Order Paper—it is true that there are private contributions towards road projects. If a trading estate, for example, needs access to a new trunk road, those who run and pay for the trading estate will pay for that access; and quite right, too.

Earl Ferrers: My Lords—

Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords—

Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords—

Noble Lords: This side!

Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, would not the answer to the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, be an unconditional "yes" in the event that he would consider deleting the words "part of" in line five of his Question?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the issues that have emerged in this short debate make it clear that it is not the amount of the contribution that is the problem but the issue of equity between one citizen and another.

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House consider it correct that one of his Ministers should continually reject the advice of the Procedure Committee on appellations, which we discussed a week ago? He continues to call people just "Lord So-and-so"—he referred to "Lord Peyton"—as opposed to "the noble Lord, Lord Peyton".

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I believe that it is for me to answer the question of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers—

Noble Lords: Hear, hear!

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if any Member of the House is offended by the appellation that I use, I undertake to address him as I have addressed the noble Earl.

Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, does the Minister accept in general terms that my noble friend Lord Marlesford has a point? As Treasury money is certainly going to run out on present forecasts in the next few years unless income tax is raised, any suggestions for new public/private partnerships should surely be welcomed by the Treasury rather than spurned. Whether the money is for bypasses or private contributions to healthcare plans, a broader vision is needed.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not accept the premise—the forecast—that Lord Renton of Mount Harry advanced.

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord!

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, however, if there is anything in the idea, I repeat that our minds are not closed to new ideas.

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, surely the answer to the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, is that rich villages should be able to fund a bypass and that they should also be able to put a toll on it so that we can get back to the days of turnpikes!

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is another issue that the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, might well consider in his paper, which he has not yet undertaken to write. However, I am sure that he will.

SA80-A2 Rifle

Lord Redesdale: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the performance of the new SA80-A2 rifle used by British Forces in Afghanistan is satisfactory.

Lord Bach: My Lords, the SA80-A2 is operating in a very difficult environment in Afghanistan with both dusty conditions and extremes of temperatures. We have had reports from Afghanistan of equipment failure. In any operational environment, such reports must be investigated as a matter of urgency, but we need to establish all the facts before commenting further.

Lord Redesdale: My Lords, does the Minister agree that a degree of confidence must be built into the SA80-A2 because the SA80 needed modifications? Those included a new breech block, breech bolt, cartridge extractor, cartridge ejector, recoil springs, extractor spring, firing pin, cocking handle, magazine, gas plug and cylinder, and the light support weapon has been given a new barrel and hammer. I do not believe that many parts of the rifle have stayed the same. Considering those minor modifications in changing from the SA80 to the new A2, can the Minister say whether the soldiers are confident in their weapons? If they are, can he say why the LSW was not used in Afghanistan?

Lord Bach: My Lords, we believe that servicemen are confident in this weapon. The earlier weapons to which the noble Lord referred by implication came on stream well before our watch.

Noble Lords: Oh!

Lord Bach: My Lords, I believe it is right to point that out. However, investigations are ongoing and it would be foolish to tell the House anything that is not the result of those investigations. We do not believe that the weapon is faulty. When on patrol, it is necessary for the weapon to have dust removed from the main parts and it should also be appropriately oiled. It does not need to be fully stripped. Such cleaning can be carried out in a very short time—seconds rather than minutes.

Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that four weeks ago today members of the Defence Study Group visited the admirable School of Infantry at Warminster? There, we met the experienced officers and senior NCOs who are very familiar with the weapon. Some had been involved in the extensive trials which were undertaken in a wide variety of environments. We were shown the new weapon and the changes were explained to us. We were able to fire the weapon on the range and it worked. Therefore, does my noble friend consider that this is another example of some sections of the press trying to make mountains out of molehills?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I would never accuse any sections of the press of doing that. However, I am grateful to my noble friend. He told me that he and others had visited Warminster on that occasion. I believe that what he found when trying out the SA80-A2 was what most other people have found when using it. It has gone through the most severe tests and has been successful in all of them.

Lord Vivian: My Lords, can the Minister inform the House of the failure rate in rounds fired from the SA80-A2, the M16 and the AK47 rifles? Have any faults been reported by the SAS in their use of the Demarco rifle?

Lord Bach: My Lords, as to the last part of the noble Lord's question, he knows that we do not comment on equipment that special forces may or may not have. As to the first part of his question relating to failure rates, extensive trials were undertaken before the SA80 was issued. As I replied a moment or two ago, those trials demonstrated that the SA80-A2 was a very reliable weapon system. The testing included trials in Kuwait in very high temperatures with strong winds and blowing sand.

Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, when I held the position that he now holds with so much greater distinction that I did, I took delivery of the first SA80 for the British Army? In the subsequent target-shooting competition with the then Chief of the General Staff, I was the clear victor. Clearly there cannot be too much wrong with the weapon.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I was not aware that the noble Lord had had such a great victory. But it was some time ago and I am glad that he remembers it so well.

Lord Burnham: My Lords, as I understand it, the refurbishment of the weapon cost £93 million. What would be the cost of starting again from scratch and producing another weapon in which all the forces have confidence or of using any of the other rifles which are available on the market at present?

Lord Bach: My Lords, as a very small correction, I believe that the figure is £92 million. The cost of replacing the SA80 would be in the region of £500 million. That would be the cost of buying a new system, including spares, additional infrastructure, rifle racks, blank firing adapters, and so on. We have no intention of doing that.

Lord Chalfont: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that this matter is part of a bigger problem? Does he recall that as recently as November 2000 the Public Accounts Committee of the other place produced a very critical report on procurement in the Ministry of Defence? It pointed out, among other things, that 60 per cent of weapons examined by the National Audit Office after acceptance into the Armed Forces had not fulfilled the users' requirements. Can he confirm that, since then, we have had problems with armoured vehicles in Oman, with the hunter-killer submarine and with the upgrading of the Tornado aircraft? Do not our Armed Forces deserve something rather better than that?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I am aware of the Public Accounts Committee report which the noble Lord mentioned. I am sure that he is aware of one published just a week or so ago which expressed in clear terms the progress being made on the defence equipment. I know that the noble Lord would want to be fair and recognise that there are many great successes in defence equipment going back many years under both governments. I believe that sometimes we should talk more about those than about others. So far as concerns the SA80, I ask the noble Lord, along with other noble Lords, to await the outcome of the investigations.

Business

Lord Grocott: My Lords, at a convenient time after 3.30 p.m. my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement which is being made in another place on the Government's drugs policy.

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
	Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Filkin.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	House in Committee accordingly.
	[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Ampthill) in the Chair.]
	Clause 15 [Support for destitute asylum-seeker]:

Lord Bhatia: moved Amendment No. 107A:
	Page 9, line 16, at end insert "and
	( ) there is a place available in an appropriate maintained school for any dependant of school age"

Lord Bhatia: In moving Amendment No. 107A, I shall speak also to Clauses 31 and 32. I want to focus on the issue of education for children. Perhaps I may relate to the Committee the experience that I, as an immigrant, have had when dealing with children.
	The children who come with their families as immigrants are, in many cases, in a highly disturbed mental state. They have been asked to leave their homes without understanding why their families have suddenly decided to leave their country and to settle in a new one. Their minds are full of fear because of what they hear from their parents. They do not understand what is being said, but the fear stems from hearing their parents talking, in some cases, about prisons and police. One fine morning their family decides to leave their country, more often than not clandestinely and without a specific or normal form of transport.
	Such children arrive in this country satisfied by the one notion which their parents are able to give them—that they are going to a country that is free and fair and to a home where they may be able to settle down without fear or isolation. Those are the children who arrive with their parents in this country. The impressions they carry from the past are those of repression, persecution, prison and so forth. Their expectations are of coming to a free country. They hope to find sanctuary, as their parents tell them.
	On both those issues, the children are in a confused state, to say the least. My amendment deals with that situation. One of the things the children probably most understand is that they will attend school as soon as they reach England. If a child suddenly finds that he is being isolated from normal schools, which perhaps are just outside the centre, and that he is expected to attend a specially designed education centre within the accommodation centre, that could bring back images of isolation, persecution and all the other issues which are in the minds of children who arrive here.
	Clauses 31 and 32 remove the duty on the local education authorities to provide education for children in accommodation centres. That means that children in the centres will no longer have the right to be educated in mainstream schools. My amendments would remove those clauses and require that families with children of school age may be placed in accommodation centres only if there are school places available locally.
	The issue was not debated in the House of Commons. That is a great shame, given the depth and breadth of feeling about it. Indeed, over 140 MPs, over 100 of whom were Labour, signed a Motion calling on the Government to withdraw this part of the Bill. As a result of some of that pressure, the Home Secretary offered to ensure that after six months the education of children in accommodation centres would be reviewed. But that does not represent any significant change in the Government's position, given that they have always indicated that asylum seekers would spend about six months in the centres.
	The Government have also sought to justify the proposal by saying that most asylum seekers who end up being recognised as refugees will remain in accommodation centres for only two months. But in the Standing Committee, in response to calls for a six-month time limit on a stay in an accommodation centre, Angela Eagle said that six months was "a tough call" in terms of processing claims.
	Segregated education is regressive and discriminatory. Our education system should be freely available to all children living in this country, as was envisaged when it was created. To say that a child's refugee status should determine whether they can attend mainstream school is a dangerous and unprecedented attack on the principle of universal access to mainstream schools.
	The concept of "separate but equal" was discredited decades ago. What is more, such an argument misses the point. Opposition to this proposal is grounded not on differing opinions on the nature of the quality of the education that will be provided, but on the fundamental principle that is at stake. That principle is simple: no group of schoolchildren should be compulsorily educated separately from other children on the basis of their immigration status.
	It is interesting to note that some of the arguments used by the Government to defend this policy were also used to defend vouchers. We were told that vouchers would be equal to what other people receive, only different, and that they would be necessary for short periods, so the strong opposition was unwarranted. Vouchers were abolished and I believe that this discriminatory policy on education for children will fail, like all other discriminatory policies before it.
	Children (like adults) and asylum seekers (like all of us) have fundamental human rights. Those are set out in detail in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which the UK signed up in 1991. The convention makes clear that rights within it must apply to all children without discrimination. Furthermore, Article 28 sets out a child's right to be educated on the basis of equal opportunity and states that different forms of secondary education should be available and accessible to every child. It is difficult to see how refusing refugee children access to mainstream schools could not be in violation of Article 28.
	Article 3 of the convention is also relevant. It states that in all actions concerning children,
	"the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration".
	I strongly contest any assertion that the best interests of the child are guiding this policy. The Government state that it will be better for children seeking asylum to be educated separately, but that flies in the face of what we are told by the charities and organisations which work with such children. On what evidence is the claim that the children will be better off being educated in the accommodation centres based? In particular, which professional organisations and other experts have endorsed that view?
	The list of experts and broad spectrum of organisations fiercely opposed to the education proposals on the basis that they are not in the interests of children and violate their rights includes: Save the Children; the Refugee Council; the T&G Union; the Children's Society; the National Union of Teachers; the National Society for the Protection of Children; the Immigration Law Practitioners' Association; Barnardo's; Oxfam, the Association of Teachers and Lecturers; UNICEF, and many others.
	Children seeking asylum have deep concerns about the proposals. One child consulted by Save the Children said that they would feel as if they were in prison if they were not allowed to go to the local school from the accommodation centres. Another pointed out that they would learn English more quickly if they went to school. The Joint Committee on Human Rights recently issued its report on the Bill. In respect of education proposals the report stated in paragraph 62:
	"We understand the disquiet which has been expressed at the prospect of removing the children of destitute asylum-seekers residing in accommodation centres from mainstream schools, and educating them separately in accommodation centres. It gives rise to troubling echoes of historical educational regimes in some other countries where children were educated separately on the basis of race or colour, under the now discredited pretence that the separate provision was equal. Separate education on the basis of ethnicity or national origin breeds and entrenches social and educational inequality and inhibits or even deters integration".
	It is difficult to see how this disturbing policy squares with the Government's broader social inclusion agenda, particularly in terms of ensuring that the same opportunities are available to all children in the UK, whatever their circumstances. Elsewhere, the Government are making strenuous efforts to promote inclusion and integration. Those efforts will clearly be undermined by the ramifications of the segregated education system. The draft children's strategy published by the Children's and Young People's Unit at the end of 2001 states:
	"We believe that all policies and services for children and young people should be: Equitable and non-discriminatory. All children and young people should have access to, and be enabled to participate in, services that they need, when they need them, in a way which respects diversity and their individual needs."
	It would be interesting to know how much the Home Office talked to colleagues in the Children's and Young People's Unit and in the DfES when this policy was formulated. It certainly does not inspire confidence in the Government's claim to be promoting joined-up thinking across departments. It is important to recognise that for children, integration cannot wait until a final positive decision has been made on their asylum claims. What may be a relatively short period for an adult can seem like a lifetime for a child and represents a significant part of childhood and development.
	Proposals to provide services and to educate refugee children separately will have a long-term detrimental effect on their development and successful integration into society.
	Save the Children works with children seeking asylum in this country and, based on its experience, believes that inclusion is a vital ingredient of rehabilitation. It has found that mainstream schools are the ideal starting point for refugee children to rebuild their lives and to enable the genuine inclusion of all children and their families in our communities. The structure and routine of a regular school day can help to provide a sense of normality and security in a child's life, which is vital to promoting their emotional, educational and social well being.
	It is interesting—and disturbing—to consider what kind of messages we are sending to the public by not just sanctioning a system of segregated education but actually creating one. There is surely a danger that that kind of measure has the unintended but predictable consequence of giving oxygen to prejudice and signalling to the public that discriminatory treatment of asylum seekers is acceptable. It is a sad lesson to teach children that if you are different you are set apart.
	The status of children seeking asylum as asylum seekers should always take second place to their status as children. Uppermost in our minds as we formulate policies that affect these vulnerable children should be a clear and a genuine desire to discharge our duties to protect and care for them and at all times to promote their best interests.
	If Amendment No. 107A is accepted, Clauses 31 and 32 would be redundant as refugee children would be educated in mainstream schools. I beg to move.

The Lord Bishop of Hereford: I express my warm support for the amendment. I believe that it goes to the heart of the question of whether the Government really and seriously put the welfare of the child before any other consideration in caring for them while they are in this country and preparing them, in many cases, to be fully integrated into British society.
	Yesterday the Minister said on a number of occasions that he believed that accommodation centres would be good places for asylum seekers to be. That may be the case for some people. It may be the case for some of the adults. I believe that it is not the case for any children. It is self-evident that children will be better cared for if they are educated in mainstream schools.
	There are serious worries about the educational provision that might be made in accommodation centres. The teachers there will not necessarily be required to have completed an initial teacher training course. What will the quality of teaching be? Matters such as anti-bullying policies and discipline will not be covered by statutory duties but set out in individual agreements made for each accommodation centre. There will be no obligation for an accommodation centre to have a child protection policy in place. That is a serious worry.
	No one quite knows what the role of the LEA will be in the delivery of education in such places. It becomes clear that the education to be provided in such places would be less good than the education in maintained schools. By definition, we cannot want asylum-seekers' children to be educated in this way.
	It is important to recognise the experience in mainstream schools of caring for asylum-seeker children, which, by and large, is quite good. It can be challenging but it can be successfully achieved. Some comments made by head teachers are relevant here. One said:
	"We challenge anyone to stand in our playground and pick out the refugees from the rich array of children happily playing together. We regard the presence of refugee children with their particular experiences as a unique benefit to other pupils".
	Quite apart from the benefit to themselves of being in that place.
	"They [other pupils] learn a great deal from them and develop knowledge, respect and acceptance".
	Another head teacher said:
	"My point is not that the proposals are illegal"—
	which of course they would not be if the Bill were to be enacted—
	"nor that they are morally indefensible (which I believe them to be), but that they are unnecessary, resource-inefficient and fundamentally at odds with the Government's avowed commitment to pluralism and social inclusion. I am convinced that educating refugees and asylum seekers in a mainstream school actually works, and that my experience, backed by the judgement of Ofsted and HMI, supports that conviction".
	There is evidence that it works; that it can be done; and that it is a better way of doing it. Certainly children, so far as they know their own minds, want to go into schools, as the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, has said. The Joint Committee on Human Rights has commented critically on that part of the provision of the Bill.
	I wonder whether the Minister has done his sums on the matter. Yesterday it was claimed that 80 per cent of asylum seekers would be young single men and that 20 per cent would be partly single women and partly families. Families are parents as well as children. Might it be reasonable to suggest that 5 per cent of asylum seekers will be children of school age? Even if we have accommodation centres on the scale of 700 people, which I hope we do not, we shall have 35 children in each centre. One does not have to be a genius in educational policy or mathematics to know that schooling provided in such a place for 35 children, ranging in age from five to 16, would be an educational disaster, however good the teaching. The evidence is that the teaching will be less good than that provided in maintained schools.
	It is self-evident that this amendment is a highly desirable one. I beg the Government to accept it so that families will go into accommodation centres only if schooling is available for school age children in mainstream schools.

Lord Moser: I strongly support the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia. This is one of the most regrettable—I feel almost like saying disgraceful—parts of a Bill which sets out to be positive and welcoming to asylum seekers and to refugees generally. I dread to think what would have happened to me if, when I came here at the age of 13, I had been somehow prevented from going to a mainstream school.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia has said, these clauses send exactly the wrong signals to the rest of the country and to communities. They send a signal that for some reason or other best known to the Government these children will be educated in ghettos called "accommodation centres". That is exactly the wrong signal. The clauses go against all the worthy remarks that we have heard from Ministers about integration. On the first day in Committee, when I spoke about naturalisation, I questioned the Government's insistence that applicants for naturalisation, who were probably previously children of asylum seekers, should be tested not just for English, which is desirable, but for their knowledge of society. The whole signal was meant to be that these people should be integrated totally into our society. How do the Government square that with this attempt to separate children to begin with from the hope of total integration? It goes exactly in the opposite direction.
	There are other objections of a more technical kind. What will happen to these children after six months when, having been in the obscure accommodation centre and separately taught, they go into a mainstream school—if that is what happens. I could go on, but the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, has made all the points. There are no sound arguments in favour of Clause 15 of the Bill.
	I regard the Home Office's attitude to this amendment—the Home Office, as I remember from my days in Whitehall, is not always the most flexible of government departments—as a litmus test of its attitude in general.

Lord Dholakia: We would like to hear much more from the Minister about some of the important issues raised by the three noble Lords, and, in particular, by the excellent contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, on the issue.
	So far we have not disputed the establishment of accommodation centres. The Minister is well aware of our approach. There should be a time limit. Asylum seekers should not find themselves in such accommodation centres for more than six months. However, one of the difficulties is the blanket approach that the Government seem to have taken to the matter of education.
	I shall cite an example. We must recognise that, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford said, there will be children and young people with different educational needs. We must bear in mind that a substantial number of asylum seekers are well-qualified people—doctors, vets and engineers. They have left their country to seek asylum here because of the persecution that they have suffered. Their children would have been to an educational establishment in their own country and are here only because of the persecution that their parents suffered. How will we arrange for the education of people who have obtained certain qualifications in their homeland? Will we, for example, provide classes in the accommodation centres for youngsters doing something in physics, botany or zoology? It is highly improbable that accommodation centres would have the facilities. That is why it is so important that we recognise the different needs.
	We are talking of cases in which it is perfectly possible for youngsters to benefit from mainstream education in the area in which they find themselves. If the Minister or the system were, ultimately, to decide that those families do not qualify to stay in this country, we should try to ensure that, at the least, they return to their homeland with a high opinion of the standard of education that they have received, rather than adopting the broad-brush approach that accommodation centres would provide all the relevant facilities.
	That important exception must be made. I hope that the Minister will consider seriously the substantial arguments made by noble Lords about the matter.

Baroness Whitaker: I should like to express some concern about the amendment, although I do so with great trepidation and with apologies to the NGOs that have discussed the matter with me. I also apologise to the noble Lords who moved the amendment, for whom I have a high regard.
	It seems to me that education in accommodation centres could be safer—safer than some secondary schools that I know—not only for the children but for the parents who would take them to and from school. I say that with knowledge of secondary schools. Such provision could also be more appropriate for children who have, almost certainly, come through a traumatic experience. It ought, of course, to be of a standard equivalent to that in mainstream education. However, it must be for only the short period in which the families seek asylum. The matter is entirely different when such people become refugees.
	Like other noble Lords, I have had many letters about the contribution made by refugee children, and I have direct knowledge of it. However, those letters are about refugees. I wonder whether some pressure groups have been confounding refugees with asylum seekers. The noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, used the term "refugee children" when moving his amendment, as did the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford when he quoted the head teachers.
	I add two riders to my feeling that education in accommodation centres might be better. First, the education must really be appropriate and be provided by qualified, expert and committed teachers who know about the context of asylum seeking, not by those who cannot get work elsewhere. Secondly, it must last for only a short period. As was said yesterday, six months is too formative a period in a child's life.
	I remind noble Lords who referred to the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights that the committee did not come down entirely against education in accommodation centres. The report says that such matters call for careful judgment and that the new clauses will be useful in various ways. I invite my noble friend the Minister to show such balanced, careful judgment in dealing with the amendment.

The Earl of Sandwich: I am sure that my noble friend Lord Bhatia is right to say that universal education should mean just that and that no group in our society should be denied it. Those who seek refuge from persecution and arrive on our shores already belong to our society. In contrast, various clauses in the Bill provide for asylum seekers to be left in a kind of limbo of accommodation centres and with another version of education, until they are recognised as refugees.
	Children who enjoy a range of rights under the two UN Conventions and our Children Act 1989 would, apparently, be denied those rights because of a perceived failure on the part of their parents, rather than the state. There is a duty on local authorities that goes back to the Education Act 1944, and it should not be interfered with. That point was reinforced by the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton of Upholland—I see that she is in her place—who, in reply to a Parliamentary Question in January, said that children of asylum seekers and refugees had the same rights of access to the education system in the United Kingdom as any other child. We might argue about the word "system", but I submit that the noble Baroness might well be thought to be sympathetic to the amendment.
	The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford referred to the JCHR report, so I shall not quote from it. However, I refer noble Lords to section 62, on page 24. I recognise that the amendment does not solve the problem of asylum seekers for whom there are no places in local schools. However, the Bill would represent a retrograde step, and I strongly support the amendment.
	I must apologise to the Minister. I have an urgent appointment and must leave the debate.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The Government's problem is the size of the centres that they plan to have. There might easily be 50 children descending on a village school. We cannot do that; it would not work. If the centres were smaller, there would be no problem, and I agree with the noble Lord who moved the amendment that that is the ideal solution. There is a problem, and it must be seen from the point of view of the local authorities who run education.

Lord Joffe: Normally, it would be indefensible for us to create a law that stipulated that a particular group of children was to be prohibited from going to school because of their immigration status. That would be legislating for discrimination. However, in order to understand the Government's proposals, we must consider whether there are compelling reasons that would, none the less, justify having segregated education for the children of asylum seekers.
	Many of the Government's arguments in defence of the policy are flawed and inconsistent. On the one hand, they say that they want to promote the integration of asylum seekers; on the other, they develop a policy that is in stark contradiction to that, proposing to segregate children in accommodation centres. On the one hand, they say that they want schools to be inclusive; on the other, they say that a particular group of children is not allowed to go to school. On the one hand, they say that the quality and nature of the education in accommodation centres will mirror that in schools; on the other hand, they say that it has not yet been decided whether the teachers in accommodation centres will even be required to complete initial teacher training or whether the full national curriculum will be available.
	I shall put aside those flaws and contradictions, for the moment. A better starting point for objective consideration of the issues would be to apply the test that flows logically from the justification for trialling accommodation centres that the Minister provided yesterday. I shall paraphrase what he said when he spoke of accommodation centres being the best way of providing the support that asylum seekers need while waiting for their applications for asylum to be speedily determined.
	Extrapolating from those remarks, the crisp issue in relation to education is whether segregated education is the best way of providing the support that the children of asylum seekers need. Certainly the major children's charities and teaching unions that have the practical experience of teaching refugee children do not think so. In recent weeks the major children's charities and teachers' unions have been saying repeatedly and unequivocally that children seeking asylum are better off in mainstream schools where they can gain the full benefits of the richness and value of social interaction with peers and can enjoy fully the social and developmental dimensions of the school experience so vital to their wellbeing.
	Another message emerging from schools with refugee children is that their presence benefits all children by helping them to learn in practice—not just in theory—about tolerance, respect and diversity. The head teacher of a school with a significant proportion of refugee children among the pupils has been quoted by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford. Another headmaster, this time of a secondary school in south Camden, says:
	"I believe the most appropriate place for refugee students to be educated from the time of their arrival is in mainstream schools. I am very proud of the asylum seeking children we have in our school. They contribute a great deal to our school and I very much respect their commitment to education and their parents' commitment to their children's education".
	Nobody is trying to argue that the inclusion of children seeking asylum in mainstream schools does not present a substantial challenge to individual schools, teachers and local education authorities. But it is worth remembering that the inclusion of other groups of children, such as homeless children and those whose first language is not English, can bring similar challenges. We have successfully found ways of rising to those challenges. Surely we have all reached a common understanding over the years that the answer is not to segregate groups of children who are viewed as problematic, but rather to share the good practice that has been developed and to work closely with schools and teachers to ensure that adequate and appropriate strategies and resources are in place. A different approach in the case of children seeking asylum sets a dangerous and undesirable precedent.
	The National Union of Teachers states:
	"The Home Secretary's proposals are a denial of every tenet of education and equality legislation".
	The union argues that education within the confines of an accommodation centre cannot equal the range of provision within a school or education authority. It is possible that at any one time in an accommodation centre, there will be children who range from the under-fives to primary, secondary and post-16s. No school in the United Kingdom could replicate that range of provision let alone an accommodation centre.
	The Government have said that the nature and quality of education provided in accommodation centres will be comparable to that of schools. I wish to explore that. I should be grateful if the Minister would provide more information on the following questions. What qualifications will teaching staff in accommodation centres be required to have? What types of support staff will there be in accommodation centres? Will they include educational psychologists and youth workers, for example? What vocational courses will be available to young people aged over 14?
	I have further questions for the Minister. What are the estimated costs of setting up and running accommodation centres and, separately, what are the costs of setting up and running the educational services that must be provided? How do those education costs compare with the costs of refugee children attending mainstream schools? It may be that solely in the light of those costs and ignoring the important principles that have been outlined a better way of supporting the children of asylum seekers would be to subsidise the mainstream schools they could attend which, in turn, would overcome all the other problems that exclusion from such schools will generate.
	In conclusion, I cannot resist the temptation to refer to another experiment in tailoring courses for a particular group of underprivileged people, which happened in South Africa. I do not compare for a moment the motivation of this Government with that of the South African Government which led to the lack of education for a vast sector of the population. But the lesson to be learned from that regime is that there is great danger in setting precedents in education for particular groups of people. I support the amendment.

Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: I say immediately that I share the care and concern expressed on all sides of the Chamber about the education of the children of asylum seekers who are placed in accommodation centres while their applications for asylum are dealt with. I underline that because the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, have confused the debate to the extent that the terms "refugee children" and "asylum children" have been used as if they were interchangeable, which they are not.
	It is as well that the Committee reminds itself that the purpose of accommodation centres is not the education of the children within them. I say that not in a brutal way. The reason for discussing the establishment of accommodation centres is to provide safe and secure accommodation for people, including families, while their applications for asylum are considered and appeals subsequent to such applications are dealt with. The mathematics, as I calculate them, are that the stay in an accommodation centre will be between 16 weeks and a maximum of 26 weeks, with many families arriving when local schools are closed in any event—for six or seven weeks in the summer, for example, and at intermittent periods throughout the year.
	We must focus on the purpose of accommodation centres and swiftly afterwards concentrate on the best way of attending to the educational needs of the children of those who have made an asylum application. Without seeking to cause offence, I have to say that we are not talking about a family discussion as the education of our sons and daughters, or grandsons and grand-daughters is being planned and we decide where they will go to school. We are dealing with adults and children who, under the 1951 convention, have been forced into the hands of people smugglers. In order to make an application for asylum in the United Kingdom, we insist that people travel half-way across the planet, putting themselves at the mercy of people smugglers. Your Lordships have heard me say before that it is a crazy way to run a system, but that is another matter and does not arise on this amendment.
	Some, if not all, of the parents and children to whom the amendment refers will have spent many weeks, or several months in some cases, being smuggled and ferried across international borders at least half-way across the planet. That is the state in which those adults and children arrive in this country.

Earl Russell: If the noble Lord, Lord Corbett of Castle Vale, wants to discourage people traffickers, as I do, would he not be more effective by attacking carriers' liability than by segregating the children of their victims?

Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: Certainly not. That is an entirely different issue. Members of the Committee may have heard me try to argue my view that under the 1951 convention, applications for asylum should be made in the first safe country in which the asylum seeker finds himself and dealt with by the diplomatic posts in that country. But that is another matter.
	I was describing the dreadful state in which such children and their parent or parents arrive in this country and are sent to accommodation centres. They will remain in the centres for between 16 and 26 weeks. What then is the point of saying, "Yes, go into the nearest local school, but if your application is refused, and if that is confirmed on appeal, you will be out of that school"? That further change is avoidable if they are educated properly in accordance with the national curriculum, as my noble friend will confirm will happen. After all, these children have already experienced turmoil and disturbance over several months. That is an argument for the establishment of the accommodation centres. A further strong argument is that those who reside in them have time to become accustomed to new and different surroundings.
	At that stage, the children are not refugees; they are the children of asylum seekers. There is no reason why the education provided in accommodation centres for that short period should be isolated from that being delivered in local schools. In fact, there is every good reason why every attempt should be made to foster links between local schools and the children in the centres. I am sure that that is the view of teachers, too.
	We are losing sight of the fact that we are dealing with children who have not had regular experience of education. That is not for one minute a reason to deny them proper educational provision, but it is not as though they are moving school from Durham to Surrey. Most of the children come from extremely deprived circumstances and, if recent events in Afghanistan were anything to go by, the girls were banned from attending school.
	We should concentrate on getting the education delivered within the accommodation centres right during the relatively brief period in which the children are expected to be there, rather than assuming that they will suddenly become refugee children and be denied mainstream education. That is not the Government's intention.

Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I approach this difficult question on the premise that it will be better for a child in an accommodation centre to be educated in the local school than in the centre. The noble Lord, Lord Corbett, knows a great deal about these matters and was a distinguished chairman of the All-Party Home Affairs Committee in the other place. However, I was disturbed by his speech because it leads to the conclusion that because many of the children have had a rough and rotten deal for many months, they shall be exposed to a rough deal in the context of education for up to 26 weeks.

Noble Lords: No!

Lord Mayhew of Twysden: That is a conclusion, if my initial premise is correct. The noble Lord said that it is not the purpose of the centres to educate the children. I agree that the primary purpose is to give them somewhere safe to live. But an extension of that argument might be that it is not the purpose of the centres to maintain the children's health if we do not propose to exclude them from the local hospitals.
	In that regard, I object to the fact that the Bill makes it mandatory that no such child shall attend the local maintained school. A Member of the Committee—I have forgotten who—said today that we are trialling accommodation centres. That echoed what the Minister said yesterday. With customary frankness, the Minister said that the Government are not certain that they have got everything right, but let us them a trial. That was in the context of the numbers of people the centres were to contain. Why do we not carry out a trial of allowing the children to go to the local schools?
	The provision need not be mandatory, because of course there are problems. My noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour pointed out a most important one; that in some schools there is not sufficient accommodation. That will not always be the case. Indeed, we heard significant second-hand evidence from head teachers about the advantages to the schools and their pupils of having the children attend.
	I ask merely that the Government should think again about the matter. They should delete the mandatory prohibition and, in proper cases after proper consultation, allow children to attend mainstream schools. That is all I ask. The arguments I have heard so far have not persuaded me in favour of maintaining the Bill as it is.

Lord Chan: I strongly support the amendment. I make a plea as one whose professional career has been in the care of sick children. The number of children likely to be housed in accommodation centres, as calculated by the right reverend Prelate and confirmed by the Minister, is small. They are not all of the same age. However, it is important to appreciate that all the children have been subjected to psychological trauma. They will continue to be segregated from other children in the community, whom they will see on the streets. I understand that the centres will not be behind barbed wire. Segregating them from a normal school environment will merely prolong their sense of isolation and psychological trauma.
	Most of the children in accommodation centres are likely to stay there for up to six months, unless the Minister has plans to shorten the period. If one of the considerations relates to the security and safely of asylum seekers, surely keeping children away from school will not help. Allowing them to attend a mainstream school in a normal environment will have two advantages. First, they will recover from their psychological trauma more rapidly. Secondly, they will meet normal children. Their parents will certainly not abscond, because they and the children live together in the centres.
	However, even more important is the consideration of our high reputation for fair and humane treatment of all people in this country. The Government's proposals will deal that reputation a severe blow. If we are found to be segregating the children of asylum seekers, where is the reputation for fair and humane treatment? The welfare of all children, irrespective of their status, surely must be kept uppermost in any arrangements we make for asylum seekers in this country.
	Finally, when the trial on the four accommodation centres commences—I agree with the comment made a little earlier—we should place at least one or two children in normal schools, even if we did want a group to be educated within the centre.
	Most important, I hope that the Minister will be able to give us an assurance that the results of this experiment will be analysed. As I have said, the issue with regard to children that should be considered as uppermost is their welfare. That is of paramount importance.

Earl Russell: If I had been addressing a medieval congregation rather than a modern House of Lords, I would have found the notion of the noble Lord, Lord Moser, being prevented from attending a mainstream school—and then being greeted by a roar of anger from the heavens—an irresistible subject for a sermon. However, I do not intend to preach a sermon, but I shall treasure that as one of the nicest moments of drama that I have heard in this House.
	The proposers of the amendment have made a very powerful case. I refer in particular to the questions asked by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford. He referred to the disapplication of much of our education legislation, covering teacher qualifications and so forth. They will require a deal of response. On the other hand, I was also extremely interested in the right reverend Prelate's arithmetic. He assumed that there would be 35 children in each centre, which is not unreasonable. If we presume that a range of subjects is to be taught, then more than one teacher will need to be available. That will create a pupil:teacher ratio which will be the gross envy of the indigenous population outside. The difficulties of the argument "separate but equal" should work both ways.
	The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, is rapidly becoming the conscience of the House on this Bill. He expressed a dislike of segregated education, which I believe we all feel. But on the first day of our deliberations he also expressed a dislike of accommodation centres, which I also feel. My late friend Lady Seear, when addressing a Liberal summer school on ethics in politics, once commented that, in politics, the problem is always trying to choose the lesser of two evils. That is why we on these Benches will reserve our position until we have heard and probed what the Minister has to say on the forthcoming government Amendment No. 114A, containing a regulation-making power to fix the length of time that people may be required to stay in an accommodation centre. That is because our highest priority is to keep the time during which people are consigned to a centre as short as possible, a wish also expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker. We hope that six months will mean six months.
	I felt somewhat disappointed on reading the Minister's response to a point put by my noble friend Lord Greaves last night while I had a belated bite of supper after our debates on the regulations. He appeared to assume that in all cases it would be necessary to detain people in accommodation centres for as long as their cases and appeals were pending. I hope that that is not to be his final word on the matter. If it were, then on Report it would affect very materially indeed our position on this amendment.
	If people can be taken out of accommodation centres within six months, then I think that we might be induced to tolerate the Government's proposals. But were there to be a serious slippage in that position, we would have to reserve our opinion and think through the whole thing again.
	Meanwhile, by far the most practical and helpful speech of the debate was that made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden. If there is to be a way forward, I hope that the Minister will consider whether perhaps that might be the direction in which the way might lie.

The Earl of Listowel: If she is to reply to the debate, could the Minister elaborate on the proposals put forward by her noble friend Lord Corbett to establish links with local schools. How would such links be promoted? Where would the funding be found for them? What would be the specific intention with regard to sporting and other activities between local schools and accommodation centres? I would find that information extremely helpful.

Lord Avebury: Perhaps I may pursue a little further the question of arithmetic. If the right reverend Prelate is right in his assumption that, of the 750 inmates in each accommodation centre only 35 will be children, then 18 per cent of those children would be released into mainstream education after two months; that is, at the point at which their families' applications were successful. According to the arithmetic detailed yesterday by the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, a further 10 per cent would then be released after a further four months; that is, at the point at which their families were successful on appeal. So we are not referring to 35 children spending the whole six months in the accommodation centre, but to a gradually diminishing number as families are successful in their applications. Thus my noble friend Lord Greaves was correct to point out that the final outcome would be that, if 50 per cent of the cases were successful, then by the end of six months only some 17 children would be left in the accommodation centre. How will adequate education for a handful of children be provided across the whole age range that might be represented in a particular centre?
	That question leads me to put the following question to the Minister: is it to be the Government's policy to distribute the families evenly over the four accommodation centres, or will single people be housed preferentially in two or three centres, reserving the fourth centre for families? A much greater concentration of children would then be achieved in one centre. In so doing, it would be possible to provide better educational facilities than if the resources to be made available for this purpose had to be spread across four different centres. We have not discussed this point, but surely it would be sensible to concentrate the necessarily limited resources in a smaller number of centres rather than seek to provide adequate arrangements in all four of them.
	I wish to put a further question to the Minister. It arises out of the undertaking given in response to the criticisms voiced by the Joint Committee on Human Rights to the effect that the success of accommodation centres in their efforts to provide education for the children residing in them should be one of the criteria to be considered when evaluating the initial trial. In pursuance of that undertaking, will the Government give a further undertaking to the committee that if, at the end of the trial, they find that the outcomes for the children are less favourable than they would have been had they been provided with mainstream education, they will review the whole policy? That would meet the logic of what they said to the Joint Committee on Human Rights.

Lord Bridges: The powerful speeches made by my noble friends Lord Bhatia and Lord Moser have thrown light on the difficult question of discrimination. We have all found that a most disagreeable aspect of what is involved here. Perhaps I may suggest a rather more practical approach when considering the problems faced by children as they arrive with their parents at the accommodation centres. If they are to make progress, then their greatest single need is to acquire some knowledge of English.
	In my family it happens that we have some experience of those difficulties. Some 20 years ago, when I was posted to work in the Foreign Office in London, my wife qualified as a teacher in English as a foreign language in order to make a contribution to the family income. Subsequently she taught for a year or so in a GLC school. When listening to her account of the way in which those classes were conducted, it became apparent that there is a very particular art to teaching English to a group of people who have one thing in common: they do not know our language.
	I suggest that it might be a focus of whatever educational activities take place in these accommodation centres to equip the children with a sufficient knowledge of our language. In that way, if they have to stay there for a long time they could then be transferred to local schools where they could be absorbed into school life and have a normal school education. I hope that this suggestion will help.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: We all have considerable sympathy for the Government because of the sheer size of the problem they face and the numbers involved. Obviously there are tremendous advantages in having accommodation centres with, perhaps, temporary courts alongside so that rights are protected, and so on, but I agree with my noble friend Lord Bridges that it is absolutely essential that English is taught in the accommodation centres from the word go. The possibility for learning English should be available.
	I strongly support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Bhatia. When children have suffered to the extent that these children will have suffered—and, let us face it, we cannot be sure that the period we are talking about will be only six months; we know how things drag on—it must make sense to put families with children in separate areas, smaller areas if possible, where the children can go to local schools. This is a crucial area. We must be able to accommodate them and we must know that there is space for them in such schools. Only this morning I heard about one part of the United Kingdom which is so overcrowded with looked-after children that the local area is not able to cope. I know that will be of concern to the Secretary of State for Education.
	I firmly support the amendment. I hope that the Government can assure us that the considerable concerns that have been raised and the pleas that have been made will be listened to and taken into account.

Lord Dubs: I plead with the Government to show flexibility in their approach. After all, some asylum-seeking children or children of asylum seekers may well speak fluent English and have a reasonable educational attainment. They could move into a local school, if it is not too far away, seamlessly and quickly. Others would not be able to cope with a local school because they would need to learn English first, as has been said.
	In some instances the accommodation centre may be close to local schools, which could take some of the children; in other instances the accommodation centre may be too far away. We should be flexible. Where children can move to a local school as soon as possible, they should; where there is no appropriate local school or the children's English is not good enough, they should stay and receive their education in the accommodation centre. In that way we can move forward in the best interests of the children.

Lord Greaves: I am grateful to—

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: It is appropriate that I should speak at this time. We have now had more than an hour's debate on a very important issue and it is right that the Opposition Front Bench should state its position. It has come across very clearly that all noble Lords have firmly at the front of their minds the welfare of the child, and there has been some debate about how that may best be achieved. We have made it clear in the past—we do so again—that many of the problems highlighted so carefully and clearly today could be resolved if the Government would reconsider the way they are going to structure accommodation centres, so that the processing of applications would be far brisker and would leave the children in education in those centres for a much shorter time.
	We acknowledge that the longer children remain in accommodation centres the more difficult it becomes to maintain the argument that they should be educated there. Who can fail to be impressed by the number of teachers and parents who have written to noble Lords to say how they would welcome children into their schools? That surely shows what a tolerant society we are trying to build in this country, and succeeding in many respects.
	There has been reference to the suggestion of my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew of Twysden. As ever, I pay tribute to his ability to think of a practical new approach. He suggested that the Government might trial a system whereby children could go to local schools because accommodation centres in themselves are projects and not finished products.
	I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, referred to the distinction between asylum children and refugee children as though the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford was perhaps using the wrong term. As regards the distinction between asylum-seeking children and refugee children, can the Minister confirm that the 1951 convention defines refugees as those outside their country with a well-founded fear of persecution, and that NGOs therefore use the term in its broadest sense while the Government use it in its narrowest, legalistic sense? Is it correct that the Government cannot grant refugee status but can only recognise it? That is important given that the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, raised a question in regard to that definition.

Lord Greaves: I congratulate—

Lord Filkin: Perhaps I may now reply to the debate.

Lord Greaves: I have been trying to intervene. I can speak after the Minister if he wishes, but I would rather speak before the Minister so that he can answer my questions.

Lord Filkin: Very well.

Lord Greaves: I am grateful. I congratulate the mover of the amendment on allowing this important debate to take place, particularly at this time of day. As to numbers, if the figures the Minister gave last night are correct—that perhaps 40 per cent of people in an accommodation centre of 750 residents will be either asylum seekers who are heads of families or members of those families—then the number of children in such centres could be 200 or perhaps higher. Can the Minister clarify the numbers we are talking about because it will make a great deal of difference.
	The debate today has been polarised. I support the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and, I think, the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, that more flexibility is required. What is possible will depend on the size and location of the accommodation centres. If you have a centre of 750 in the countryside, with 200 or 300 children in that centre, it will be impossible for them to attend local schools. The location and the size of the centre will be absolutely critical.
	Another critical factor is the amount of time people will spend in the accommodation centres. In the debate last night periods of two months, six months and so on were mentioned. I understand all the points that have been put forward, but it seems to me that children who do not possess English would benefit from separate education within the accommodation centre for a limited period of time—perhaps two months—which might indeed be in the summer when ordinary schools are closed.
	What will be the curriculum for these children? To talk of the national curriculum in such circumstances is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether they can be given a course which concentrates heavily on the learning of English so that if they then move on into the community the children will have those English skills and will be at a much greater advantage when going into ordinary mainstream schools.
	If, unfortunately, from their point of view, they have to be removed and returned to their countries of origin, they will have a facility in basic English which will benefit them for the rest of their lives. The point of view that under no circumstances should these children be educated in accommodation centres is wrong, provided that they receive only an initial course which does not last very long. In my view, six months would be too long.
	My final point relates to staffing. It is very important that these centres are staffed by qualified teachers, paid on ordinary teacher scales. Their jobs, in what will be akin to continuous reception classes, may be considered more onerous, if that is possible, than those of teachers in ordinary primary nowadays. Will the staff be qualified teachers, will they be paid at least on the ordinary pay scales for qualified teachers and will the LEAs have a role? Provision is made in later clauses for the School Inspections Act 1996 to apply. What will be the precise role of Ofsted or other bodies in inspecting the facilities provided by the accommodation centres?

Lord Filkin: We have today, as yesterday, had an important debate on an important subject. I regret that I shall have to cover briefly some of the issues that we debated yesterday, because many Members of the Committee who have spoken today were not present when we discussed the broader picture of accommodation centres. However, I shall try to be succinct.
	I begin by addressing, as far as I am able, the reality of the situation that the Government and society are seeking to manage. If I have to make one or two generalisations, I hope that I shall be forgiven. We are referring to families with children who arrive in the UK asking for refugee status that has not yet been granted. If they ask for support, by definition they are without shelter or security, will often have come a long way and will be in fear and perhaps traumatised. They arrive in difficult circumstances, and one can well imagine that the children of such families will be distressed or in turmoil. They form a diverse group. One cannot sensibly generalise about what refugee children are like. They have often had interrupted or limited education, or none at all, although there will obviously be exceptions. There has also been evidence that they have experienced some bullying when in mainstream schools in certain areas of Britain.
	The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, put down a challenge. The current system is that when they apply for support, they are moved initially into emergency accommodation, with or without schooling, for perhaps one or two weeks, until dispersed accommodation is sought for them, where they stay for however long it takes for their asylum applications and any appeals that they choose to exercise to be determined. If they are successful in their applications for refugee status or exceptional leave to remain, they are allowed to settle in the country permanently, or for as long as their ELR lasts. Without labouring the point, that system is evidently not perfect in a number of respects.
	The central argument about accommodation centres, on which we had a good debate yesterday—I regret yet again boring the Front-Benchers—concerns whether it is possible to accelerate the decision-making timetable rapidly for refugee families by putting them into accommodation centres in ways that give them access to proper decision-making processes, legal support for their applications and fair hearings, and at the same time provide them with better support so that they receive fair decisions much more quickly than has been the case to date. The Government accept the challenge of considering whether, by managing accommodation centres well, they can achieve those objectives.
	The relationship of accommodation centres to the education of children is fairly clear. First, if by that process we can rapidly determine that someone has refugee status—in cases determined on initial application, we expect to be able to do that within two months or less— they will then be integrated immediately into British society, as we all wish and accept. Secondly, while children are in accommodation centres, one can provide them with a supportive environment and the quality of education that is at least as good as they would experience in dispersed accommodation in the rest of Britain. I do not intend to oversell the case. The Government believe that there is strong evidence that we can do that.
	However, we have also said that this is a pilot scheme. We have said that we shall monitor the process through the first four centres and evaluate it carefully to see whether that hypothesis is true. If it is, it will serve the interests both of the parents, because they will have a faster affirmative or negative determination—whether affirmative or negative, it is better that it should be faster than not—and of the children, who can be moved on while they have had some beneficial educational experience. That is the challenge.
	Other challenges have been made in the debate. Yesterday, we discussed the potential benefit of accommodation centres providing a more supportive environment for families and children because of the concentration of support and services in that area. Let me deal with some of the educational aspects of that. First, the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, asked whether the DfES and other parts of the Government had been involved. The categorical answer is that they have. Officials have worked closely together. My noble friend Lady Ashton of Upholland shares my view that accommodation centres have a great potential to offer a better quality of education and support for children than would be the case in dispersed accommodation.
	The Government are obliged to provide the national curriculum for any child of school age in this country, but have the freedom to target the way in which it is delivered, better to meet the particular circumstances of a number of children who may have very limited English or have suffered some trauma as a result of their recent experiences. Ofsted's writ will apply specifically to accommodation centres. It will inspect and report on quality and provision, as with mainstream schools. If an inspection report highlights concerns about a centre, it will be required to produce an action plan. Even if there are no concerns, it will be expected to produce an action plan on how it intends to take provision forward. There will be no escape. These educational facilities will be the subject of proper public scrutiny.
	The noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, suggested that the accommodation centres may have a long-term detrimental effect on children. I strongly doubt that. The centre managers will employ qualified teachers. There will be a commitment to monitoring, both through Ofsted and through the Department for Education and Skills' monitoring processes. The objective is to make them centres of excellence for the provision of education for groups of distressed children who, if their applications are accepted, are in the process of transition between their own societies and becoming settled into our mainstream society.
	The current arrangements for dispersal put children under pressure. They are often thrown in at the deep end, without preparation. One needs to take a child's-eye view of that. We believe that putting them into accommodation centres for what in many cases will be a very short period may give them breathing space, targeted support, language training and an education that they would not otherwise have received.
	I have answered the question of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford about qualified teachers. He also asked about the role of the LEAs. The Bill specifies a number of ways in which the role of the LEAs will still exist. However, we expect a partnership to be formed with LEAs on how to take forward that role.
	I was also asked about numbers, some of which we gave yesterday. These are early days, but a rough-and-ready assumption is that there could be between 120 and 150 children in an accommodation centre of this type. A further suggestion was made as to whether it might make sense to concentrate all, or many, children in one centre. That is an interesting idea on which, without commitment, we shall reflect in an effort to decide whether such a suggestion is worthy of consideration.
	Challenges have been made as to whether the Government are compliant with CRC guidelines. We believe that placing children in accommodation centres is in their best interests. If the family is successful in its application, the process will be speeded up and integrated faster. That is significant. If the family is not successful, there is no case for integration. Indeed, if the application is unsuccessful, the family will unfortunately have to leave Britain. We do not believe that it is in the interests of the child to be moved into a school, or two or three schools—as I instanced could be the case through dispersal—and then have to leave again because the claim and the subsequent appeal have been rejected.
	I turn to the questions raised on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child as regards Article 28 and Article 3. We are not denying an education; we shall be mirroring the nature of education in mainstream schools. The quality and standard will be the same, and Ofsted inspected. I believe that I have covered most of those points.
	We are not talking about ghettos; these centres are an attempt by a civilised society to try to manage a process with both humanity and care in an effort to provide the level of care and education support at least to the standard that is possible. If we are right in that aim, as I said yesterday, these centres will be a beacon of quality across Europe. We shall show that it is possible to manage this difficult problem better than is currently the case in Britain or elsewhere.
	The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, referred to the wide range of schools. I grant his point. Clearly, a wide range of ages and, indeed, a wide range of schools will be involved. It is perhaps a model based on smaller village schools that currently deal most effectively with children representing a range of ages and abilities. Clause 32 also provides for children with very specialised needs to be educated outside the unit, subject to certain conditions, as we believe should be the case.
	Mention was made of teachers in these centres. In so far as there is evidence, it shows that these centres will be likely to attract good teachers. Often refugee children, asylum children, are keen to learn and are highly motivated. Of course, one should not generalise, but there is some truth in what I say. It is quite a satisfactory teaching experience. Therefore, we do not envisage any problem with attracting good teachers who are keen to participate in the process.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, quite rightly highlighted the current burden on schools in some areas. From the evidence supplied by the University of London, it appears that this is as much about the churning effect that takes place; in other words, the constant moving. I shall not go into detail at this stage because time is pressing. However, there is good evidence to show the burden that that places on the school—its teachers and management; and, indeed, on other children—without in any sense seeking to label asylum seekers' children as problems.
	The noble Lord, Lord Joffe, asked about teacher qualifications. Clearly, there will be a necessity for support staff. Some vocational courses will be available for adults. No doubt older children could take part in such courses after school. As regards costs comparisons, we are at the beginning of a procurement process. Therefore, for confidentiality reasons, I cannot put such information into the public domain. But, broadly speaking, we imagine that the costs should be comparable with the current cost of running education in normal situations.
	I was asked about the involvement of parents. Again, accommodation centres provide considerable potential for that to take place. The noble Lord, Lord Chan, asked about experimentation and whether it would be evaluated. I reiterate that it will be so. All our discussion yesterday was about four centres initially that we shall evaluate to see whether they provide faster decision-making. A crucial part of that process will be to ascertain whether there is evidence to show that children do at least as well in terms of their educational and their emotional support, as would have taken place if they had followed the existing routes of dispersal. I can also assure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, that that will be done.
	We should also recognise that we have the basis for such an evaluation. There is an alternative system in terms of a dispersal model. There are currently 62,000 asylum children in London alone who are waiting for the result of their decision processes, or for exceptional leave to remain. Therefore, we already have a comparison in that respect.

Lord Campbell-Savours: Perhaps I may ask my noble friend the Minister a question. He referred to Clause 32 and specifically to "specialised needs". I cannot understand where that clause relates to special needs. It refers to "special cases", but not special needs. It seems to me that the intention of the clause is to provide an over-ride on the general provisions in this area of the Bill.

Lord Filkin: When we debate the clause, I am sure that we will inspect that aspect in more detail. In essence, the clause provides the opportunity for an identification of whether children have special needs; and, therefore, whether alternative provision for them might be appropriate.
	I turn to the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, about the period of six or three months. I am not certain that I have seized the challenge that the noble Earl put to me. However, I believe that we are at one in wishing to ensure that the Home Secretary's commitment given in the other place, which we shall be introducing in a later amendment, is both clear and firm. In short, there will be a reassessment if a family is still in the centre at the six-month point. That process will seek to consider the interest of the child. If the family is still in the unit at the end of nine months, it would, if it wished, have a right to move elsewhere, irrespective of the stage of the appeal.

Earl Russell: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. In that case, the question from this side of the Committee would be whether at the end of six months the children would be released into mainstream education.

Lord Filkin: Possibly, but not automatically, is the response to that query. It would depend on the conclusion of the assessment.
	As ever, I am guided by higher, distant forces. I am advised that I should be referring to Clause 31, rather than Clause 32. One can always count on the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, to catch one out on these issues.
	The noble Lord, Lord Corbett, spoke powerfully on fostering links with local schools. Although education will be provided in the centre, one should have an open mind as to the benefits of actual linkages with the wider society and with other schools. It would be both interesting and helpful to see how that could be developed.
	The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked whether there would be a biased intake as regards families. I have touched on that as a question, and will leave it there. The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, mentioned sufficient knowledge of language, which is totally germane. One is talking about a particular group of people whose common characteristic, apart from not knowing much about Britain, will be that most of them will not speak English well. Therefore, a short period—even a two-month period—in a school with intensive English training would be of benefit of them, whether or not they were accepted for refugee status.
	I am aware that I am exceeding the patience of the Committee. It is almost impossible to answer all the points raised. However, we shall have plenty of other opportunities to discuss such matters. I look forward to taking forward this policy in its development with my noble friend Lady Ashton of Upholland. We are committed to the belief that this is in the interests of both families and children. We accept the challenge to demonstrate that that is true in practice, and the evaluation will allow us to do so.

Lord Greaves: The Minister answered my question as to whether qualified teachers would be employed. However, he did not say whether all the teachers who would be employed would have to be qualified. Can the Minister clarify that point? Further, I do not believe that the noble Lord answered my question about whether the teachers employed in these centres would be paid on pay scales/rates commensurate with those that apply to similar teachers in mainstream schools.

Lord Filkin: Yes, and I do not know.

Lord Bhatia: I do not wish to delay the debate any further. However, I should like to thank Members of the Committee for participating in the debate. It is good to take account of the variety of views expressed on all sides of the Committee. I hope that the Minister will take heed of all the views that have been put forward.
	Before I conclude the debate I wish to refer to two or three of the points that were raised. It is necessary to draw the Minister's attention to a debate that took place in the other place on 22nd May during which the Minister, Stephen Timms, said that no decision had been taken as to whether those who would be teaching in the accommodation centres for asylum seekers would be required to have completed initial teachers' training. As things have obviously moved on, I should like an assurance that that is the case.
	There were various comments on the length of time in which people will stay in the accommodation centres, and various figures—three months, six months, two months—were mentioned. However, I think that most of the major children's charities believe that a week out of school is a week lost. A critical principle is at stake here. Should there be universal access to mainstream schools? If the answer is that, in principle, access should be universal, the matter of length of stay is neither here nor there.
	Whatever we decide, we should think first and foremost about children and their emotional and educational needs. I make only one plea. Let us think about the children who will be in the accommodation centres as if they were our own children. By taking such an approach we might arrive at the right decision. Because of my personal experience—which, 30 years on, I do not wish to think about or remember—I concluded that I had to move this amendment. I hope that those of us deciding this law will think of children and their needs before anything else.
	The Minister's answers are good enough for now, but I await the Government's proposals at Report stage. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.

Drugs

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
	"With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a Statement in responding to the Home Affairs Select Committee report on drugs. In doing so, I wish to make it clear that I will publish a substantial update of the 1998 drugs strategy this autumn.
	"On 23rd October, in my evidence to the Select Committee, I laid out a number of key themes which are reflected in the Committee's report. I am grateful for the excellent work which the Chairman and Members of the Committee have done and to all those who have assisted both the Committee and myself, including my drugs unit. I also thank the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs and the many agencies and authoritative bodies who have contributed.
	"I cannot imagine that there is a Member of this House who does not wish to ensure that those we represent are free from the misery that is caused by drug abuse. Class A drugs are the scourge of our time and are potential killers. Over the past 30 years the huge increase in the use of drugs, particularly hard drugs, has caused untold damage to the health, life chances and wellbeing of individuals. This has undermined family life, fuelled criminality and damaged communities. The estimated social and economic costs of drug misuse are well in excess of £10 billion a year. Around three quarters of crack and heroin users claim to be committing crime to feed their habit.
	"I am grateful for the considerable progress made by my predecessors. I am also grateful to the Secretary of State for Health for the announcement we are able to make today of an additional investment, which will total £183 million over the next three years, for treatment services and harm minimisation. The numbers entering treatment have increased by an average of 8 per cent each year since 1998. In 2000, seizures worth £780 million were made. Last year, 3.4 tonnes of heroin and 10.9 tonnes of cocaine were seized, exceeding targets.
	"Today, I wish to inform the House of the overall direction of the review of the drugs strategy and the Committee's report. There will be an increased focus on class A drugs. The message is clear. Drugs are dangerous. We will educate, persuade, and, where necessary, direct young people away from their use. We will not legalise or decriminalise any drug, nor do we envisage a time when this would be appropriate.
	"As recommended by the Committee, there will be a better focus on those whose drug addiction causes the most harm to themselves and to society; those described as problematic drug users. In the past two years, we have established the National Treatment Agency and invested more than half a billion pounds. We have begun to fill the gaps in services for crack addicts. We will continue the rapid expansion of referral for treatment of offenders.
	"We accept that expansion in managed prescribing for the most appropriate cases of heroin addiction will be necessary; the right treatment for the right patient. But more than treatment is required. Aftercare and rehabilitation must become part of the package of care for those leaving treatment, or from prison. Harm minimisation will be given greater priority. But in the form in which the term is normally used, we are not persuaded that shooting galleries would, at this moment, be helpful.
	"We will use the powers in the Proceeds of Crime Bill to confiscate the assets of those whose lifestyle depends on the misery of others and target the regional or 'middle' drug markets. We will clamp down on the dealers who prey on the young. We will increase the sentences for trafficking and dealing in class B and C drugs to 14 years. This will avoid mixed messages to those dealing in more than one drug, and will establish a lead in European-wide discussions. But we do not agree that it is necessary to introduce a supply for gain offence.
	"We will support parents and families to help them cope with the effects of addiction. In line with the Committee's recommendation, we will ensure that carers and families are involved in the development of services. We will launch an education campaign targeted at young people with the message that all drugs are harmful and class A drugs are killers. We are not persuaded that ecstasy should be downgraded; it can kill. However, the message to young people and families must be open, honest and believable. That is why I asked the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to review the classification of cannabis.
	"They have recommended that the current classification is disproportionate in relation to harmfulness and the nature of other controlled drugs. They were clear, and so am I, that cannabis is a potentially harmful drug and should remain illegal. However, it is not comparable with crack, heroin, or ecstasy. They were clear that greater differentiation between drugs which kill and drugs that cause harm would be both scientifically justified and educationally sensible.
	"I have considered this advice along with the recommendations of the Home Affairs Committee. I have taken account of the Metropolitan Police experiment in Lambeth, which has seen a 10 per cent increase in the arrest of class A drug dealers. The Metropolitan Police will today announce that the pilot will be adjusted and will be applicable across London in the months ahead. I can tell the House that I will seek to reclassify cannabis as a class C drug by July of next year.
	"Let me be clear: cannabis possession remains a criminal offence. I am determined that the police are able to control the streets and uphold order. They will be able to arrest for possession where public order is threatened or where children are at risk. The Association of Chief Police Officers will shortly issue national guidance to ensure that in the vast majority of cases officers will confiscate the drug and issue a warning. Police time saved will be refocused on class A drug dealing.
	"Where communities are strong, drugs do not take hold. Drug-related crime and disorder devastate communities. That is why last year we launched the communities against drugs fund to provide £220 million over three years to enable communities to become part of the solution. It is the vulnerable who succumb to drugs. Statutory and voluntary agencies, families and communities all have a role to play in protecting them.
	"Through education, harm minimisation, treatment and tough action against dealers and traffickers, we have a winning strategy. It will require positive commitment, rather than grandstanding. Last October, I called for a mature and intelligent debate. I hope that this is what we can continue to have. I hope that, in moving this Statement today, we continue that sensible approach to a difficult and sensitive issue. I commend the Statement to the House".
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. His closing words are absolutely right; it is very much a sensitive issue. However, the House will recognise that it is indeed an extraordinary Statement made on an extraordinary day.
	There are two coherent strategies on cannabis. The Government, in the Statement today, choose not to adopt either of them. I recognise that a serious argument can be made for complete legalisation of cannabis with sale being taken out of the hands of the drug dealers and the substance being treated like tobacco or alcohol, licensed and taxed. It is not an argument to which I subscribe. The alternative policy which we prefer can be constructed—as it is in Sweden—to make serious efforts to lead young people away from cannabis use. The Government have not adopted either of those courses. In fact, they are giving control over cannabis to the drug dealers, but with the police turning away.
	This is not just the day on which the Home Secretary made a Statement about a muddled and dangerous policy; today is also the day when the Government's chief adviser on drugs, Mr Keith Hellawell, resigned in protest at that muddled and dangerous policy. He told the "Today" programme that,
	"this is causing a great deal of problems on the streets. It's causing a great deal of problems for parents who just don't know where they are".
	Commenting later on the Home Secretary's Brixton experiment, Mr Hellawell said that it had become "open season" for those peddling drugs.
	I invite the Minister to explain whether the Government intend that the police should arrest people who are openly selling cannabis—as they are on the streets of Brixton today—or whether they are asking the police to look away. I remind the Minister what local people think of the experiment in Brixton. The Reverend Chris Andre-Watson, youth group leader at Brixton Baptist Church, said on 5th July this year,
	"This area has become saturated with cannabis and we even have drug dealing going on outside playgrounds. Young people feel that cannabis has been legalised".
	Why are the Government introducing a system whereby they say, "We shall not prosecute you if you possess a small amount of cannabis. We are happy to let you go on buying this from your criminal drug dealer, but we will perhaps try to get hold of you and prosecute you if you try to buy harder drugs or if that same criminal who is supplying you with the cannabis tries to sell you harder drugs. What you have to do is say no to them. We shall not try to stop you if you say yes in the first instance to cannabis but we shall stop you if you say yes to the harder drugs". That is not a clear choice for people to make. The Government are making a mockery of the "Just Say No" campaign. What are people to say no to these days?
	Will the Minister explain how it can be right to tell one set of people that it is all right to smoke cannabis but to tell another set of people that they may be put in prison for 14 years if they sell it? Will the Minister explain how, with a policy that consists of deeply confusing mixed messages, he can expect to reduce drug dependency and criminality in this country?
	The Statement says that the police,
	"will be able to arrest for possession where public order is threatened or where children are at risk".
	But how will the police determine the threshold for public order incidents before they decide to take action? Is that a strict legal reference to Section 4 or Section 5 public order offences and, if so, will the higher level of 4 or the lower level of 5 apply? Or do the Government intend the police to take action when other crime such as theft or burglary occurs at the same time? I am confused—as much of the Statement is confused—about when the police will have to take action. The Government say that the police will take action where children are at risk. Do they mean when children are at risk on the streets or in schools or at home? Where will the police be directed to arrest people on those occasions?
	I am afraid that just saying in the Statement that the Government's message is clear does not make it so. It is hopelessly muddled. The saddest thing about the policy is that it owes its origins not to the advice of the Government's chief adviser on drugs, nor to a well considered examination of the results of the Brixton experiment, and certainly not to the views of the people whose children's lives are being destroyed by drugs, but to a political stratagem.
	The Government adopted this policy because they believed that they could wrongfoot all their opponents, perhaps buying off the libertarians with increased liberalisation and buying off the anti-drugs lobby with a show of toughness. But, as the Government's own adviser said today:
	"There is just a sort of repackaging, a respinning of the issue to appear as if something has been done".
	The Government's clever stratagem has disintegrated in the past 24 hours and has presented the Government with a massive liability. Far more importantly, it will present many of our most vulnerable communities with the prospect of social disaster.
	But it is still not too late. It is not too late for the Government to think again before this disastrous Order in Council is implemented. In the interests of the Government and in the interests of the young people of the whole of our country they should do so.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for repeating the Statement in your Lordships' House. We look forward to the publication of the update of the 1998 drugs strategy.
	First, I express my concern about the inconsistencies in the Government's approach to the drugs policy and about the way in which the police seem to be implementing it. We do not have to go too far back to the time when Jack Straw, the then Home Secretary rejected some of the key recommendations of the report of the Police Foundation. In fact, the appointment of the drugs czar at that time gave a pointer of the Government's intention to be tough instead of liberalising some aspects of their drugs policy. The certain demise of this high level appointment is a clear indication of the change at the heart of the Government in handling this subject. However, there is the question of the confusion of the public with regard to the different messages that seem to be filtering through from the Government.
	We agree that drugs policy is an important, difficult and sensitive issue. Does the Minister therefore accept that this makes it all the more important that the Government have talks with opposition parties to seek maximum political agreement before the national drugs strategy is updated in the autumn? Does he accept that despite some progress and successes, drugs policies and the present law are still failing badly? The real signs of success are reduced numbers of drug users, drug addicts and drug-related deaths.
	Does the Minister agree that dealing with users and addicts should be seen principally as a health issue whereas tackling the dealers and traffickers should be seen principally as a crime issue? Is not that distinction important? If treatment services are to be significantly increased, which we certainly welcome, what then is the Minister's alternative to so-called shooting galleries for moving heroin addicts out of the clutch of criminals and into the hands of health professionals?
	Although prison will be entirely appropriate for dealers and traffickers, does the Minister accept that criminalisation and imprisonment are an inadequate response to the addiction of the addict while at the same time adding thousands more people to our already overcrowded gaols? The Minister mentioned an additional investment that will total £183 million over the next three years. It would be helpful to know precisely what is included within that figure.
	On classification, what is the new logic for having different harm categories for amphetamines and cannabis, for example, if the maximum punishment for dealing in them will in future be the same? On cannabis, where the noble and learned Lord the Master of the Rolls among many others shares the view that the present law has fallen into disrepute, we welcome the changed status of cannabis to a class C drug and the announcement that there will in future be a common police response across London to cannabis possession. However, it should not apply simply to London but should be a national policy.
	Does the Home Secretary not see the horrible danger of muddled messages if it becomes national policy that cannabis use will not normally be arrestable unless the police consider it a public order matter, that the police will not be expected to look for people using cannabis but that the police will be expected to confiscate it if people use it?
	If the Government agree with us that the main focus of the criminal justice and education systems should be to prevent young people being caught up in much more dangerous drugs, such as heroin and crack cocaine, is not the only logical, clear and consistent message that cannabis for personal use will never be the subject of criminal proceedings anywhere in the country but that dealing for profit in cannabis, as is the case with other drugs, will always be subject to prosecution by the law?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said, "Don't make any change" and the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, in effect said, "Legalise the possession of cannabis".
	We take a middle and sensible course. Our strategy, as set out clearly in the Statement made by my right honourable friend in another place, is to focus on class A drugs; it is not to legalise cannabis. It remains unlawful and a crime to possess it. However, as the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs and the Select Committee advised us, one's policy on drugs must be coherent and credible. They advised us that the distinctions that need to be drawn between different sorts of drugs must be more credible. That is why those two bodies recommended that we reduce cannabis from class B to class C. That advice has been taken by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. It involves not legalising cannabis but having a coherent and credible policy that people will understand. I believe that they will understand it very clearly indeed.
	As for the increase in penalties for dealing in cannabis, again, people will not have any difficulty understanding the distinction between, on the one hand, possession and, on the other hand, clamping down hard on dealing in illegal drugs such as cannabis. There is no question of a mixed message; the position is perfectly clear. We have dealt with the matter with a degree of clarity that matches people's experience.
	The noble Baroness asked whether the effect of the approach involved saying that it was okay to smoke cannabis. No, it does not say that. It says that it remains a criminal offence, albeit class C rather than class B.
	Will there be arrest for simple possession? The answer is that there will not be arrest for simple possession but that there will be arrest in aggravated circumstances, such as those involving public order or where there is a risk to children. That is in accordance with the advice given by ACPO. On the circumstances in which there is a risk to public order, I do not believe that ACPO will have any difficulty giving appropriate guidance to its members. Police officers regularly make such judgments on the streets. We have complete confidence that they will be able to continue to do so.
	The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, focused on the need to reduce the numbers of drug users, of drug dealers and of people who continue to take drugs having started to do so. We thoroughly agree. That should be the aim of our drugs policy. He said that possession—I believe that he was referring to all drugs—should be regarded as a health issue whereas dealing and trafficking should be regarded as a criminal issue. There is a role in respect of both approaches.
	The noble Lord indicated that when people go to prison, they frequently do not get sufficient treatment for their drugs problems. I agree. There has to be a real focus on providing help to people in prison who have drug problems.
	The noble Lord asked: what is the Government's response to shooting galleries and are we in favour of some kind of authorised shooting gallery? Our position, which is set out more fully in the response to the Select Committee's report, can be summarised by saying that we support the provision of safe, medically supervised areas with clean needles for the administration of heroin prescribed as part of a comprehensive package of measures for treating heroin addicts, but not for those who have not been prescribed heroin. I hope that that answers the question.
	I said in answer to the noble Baroness that we do not believe that our messages are mixed; they are quite straightforward. They seek to deal with the issue that many people face on the streets; those people need a coherent and clear response.
	I turn to what the people of Lambeth thought of the experiment. The noble Baroness will know that the Police Foundation, in alliance with MORI, conducted a poll of Lambeth residents towards the end of last year. It showed that 83 per cent of residents supported the Lambeth cannabis scheme, although for 40 per cent of the total that was conditional on the police spending more time reducing serious crime. It also showed that 74 per cent believe that the scheme would result in police time being redeployed into tackling serious crime, that 64 per cent agreed that the scheme would improve community relations and that 71 per cent saw the scheme as a better way of dealing with young people who use cannabis. I wonder whether the noble Baroness has a better angle on what the people of Lambeth think.

Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the Statement on cannabis is totally illogical and leads to the worst of all possible worlds? He said, on the one hand, that it is the Government's intention to declassify cannabis as a class C drug. I do not believe that that is right, but that is not the point. The fact is that that is bound to be taken by people as a clear message from the Government that there is really nothing wrong with taking cannabis. The Statement is bound to be looked on as encouraging experimentation and use of the drug among young people.
	To attempt at the same time to increase the penalties on dealers is utterly illogical. Where is the supply, which the Statement will encourage, met other than through dealers? As my noble friend Lady Anelay said, are not the Government really throwing the control of drugs and of young people into the hands on those very dealers? Does the noble and learned Lord really believe that those dealers, who will be encouraged to sell cannabis as a result of the declassification to class C, will be satisfied with going no further than that? Or does he accept that the chances are that they will encourage those who are going to them for class C drugs to advance to harder drugs—class A drugs—to the greater profitability of the dealers and the greater devastation of society, as the noble and learned Lord said?
	I beg the noble and learned Lord to think again about how to deal with the situation. One cannot make Statements that appear to encourage the use and possession of cannabis and which imply that cannabis in small amounts is no concern without taking some view of the supply. If one goes down that road, surely it would be better to go the whole way, to decriminalise and to have open supply rather than to leave the situation as it currently is; that is, making cannabis a class C dangerous drug with supply only through the dealers.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the noble Lord suggested that there is an illogicality between reclassifying—he referred to declassifying—cannabis as class C rather than class B, on the one hand, and, on the other, increasing the maximum penalty for trafficking in class C drugs. The answer to his suggestion is that there is no illogicality there. The basis for reclassification—all the advice—is that one needs to make distinctions between the top of the tree (heroin, crack and cocaine), which involves class A drugs, and class C drugs such as steroids, pain-killers that are not authorised and cannabis. They are all illegal but the distinctions between the three classes should be accurate, understood and coherent to people. That is a clear reason for the reclassification.
	Equally, there is nothing illogical or inconsistent between that and saying, "We take an extremely serious view of people dealing and trafficking in drugs". We believe that the right course is to increase the penalties for that in relation to classes B and C. That is what we have done. There is no illogicality.

Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, I very much welcome the Statement. I find it clear in its commitment to tackling real problems. As chair of the National Treatment Agency, I shall focus mainly on treatment issues. The treatment agency was set up last year to monitor and improve the provision of treatment and to oversee the core treatment budget. Extra funding for treatment will be welcomed by all those who are active in the field.
	As the Minister said, drug misuse affects the health of individuals, the health of families and the health of communities. It also has an impact on crime. But there are many challenges and I believe that those are addressed in the Statement. The challenges involve ensuring that integrated care facilities exist for individuals; that is, care services which stretch from referral right through to assessment and aftercare for all people—prisoners, men, women, young people and black minority ethnic groups, all of whom have very different needs.
	I also welcome the emphasis on educating young people to become more aware of the dangers of all drugs and the emphasis on tackling dealers and traffickers. The inter-departmental approach to drugs from the Home Secretary and the Health Secretary is encouraging. It is also encouraging that the Association of Chief Police Officers has placed an emphasis on treatment rather than on punishment as a solution to the problem of drugs.
	How does the Minister envisage that the joint action between departments on tackling drugs will work in practice. I should also like an update on the alcohol strategy and the drug target document.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I welcome my noble friend's question. It is very important to emphasise and re-emphasise that the drugs strategy to which my right honourable friend's Statement refers is about focusing, in criminal terms in particular, on class A drugs. It is about bearing down on drug traffickers and drug dealers. But it is also about treatment and rehabilitation, and, most importantly, it is about joining up between departments. Therefore, it is not, as the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, said, simply a criminal, health or education issue; it is a combination of all those.
	The strategy will be delivered on the basis of close liaison between all the relevant departments, reinforced from time to time by a ministerial group with representatives from all the departments.
	On targets, the Statement makes it clear that we shall publish a detailed update of the drugs strategy in October this year. I shall restrict my answers at present to the drugs strategy and not deal with the alcohol strategy.

Lord Waddington: My Lords, if I heard aright, I believe that there was one reference in the Statement to cannabis being potentially harmful. Is it not the case that cannabis can do appalling harm? Is there not now abundant evidence that it can, for example, precipitate schizophrenia? Do the Government accept the great body of evidence which indicates that cannabis is an extremely dangerous substance and that it can cause schizophrenia?
	If the Government accept that body of evidence—I cannot for the life of me see how they can ignore it—how on earth can they go forward with a misguided policy that is bound to convey to young people that they can smoke cannabis with no risk at all? How can they simultaneously tell people, "For goodness sake, don't take cannabis or you risk ruining your lives"?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, my right honourable friend's Statement makes it clear that the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs took the view that cannabis is a potentially harmful drug. My right honourable friend in another place made it clear that he, too, considered it to be a harmful drug. There is no question of there being any other view than that.
	However, the central point is that, while cannabis should remain illegal, it is not comparable with, say, crack, heroin or ecstasy. It is placed in a different category from those drugs. Again, I make it absolutely clear that the advisory council and my right honourable friend in another place considered it to be a potentially harmful drug and that it should remain illegal.

Lord Waddington: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord did not answer my question. Do the Government accept that the use of cannabis can precipitate schizophrenia?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I do not want to duck the issue, but I feel slightly reluctant to answer a specific question such as that. Perhaps I may write to the noble Lord about that.

Lord Addington: My Lords, will the Minister kindly ensure that the House will be told if any guidance is to be given about the exact effects of cannabis? If noble Lords have listened to teenagers over the past 20 years, they will be aware of the great myth that cannabis does no harm at all. There are other stories which say that it will kill you after taking your first puff. There is a huge amount of disinformation about the substance. As everyone knows, such information is widespread. Will the noble and learned Lord undertake to ensure that the young are made aware of the exact chemical effects of the substance? An important point about the cannabis culture is that it has great layers of rubbish floating around in it concerning what happens when it is taken.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, that is an important point. It is extremely important that there should be an education campaign setting out the harmful effects of all the relevant drugs—classes A, B and C—in order to get rid of myths and to inform people of the dangers of taking all drugs, including class C drugs. We hope shortly to begin an education campaign in which the precise information to which the noble Lord refers will be made as public as possible and will be directed in particular towards those in schools.

Lord Mancroft: My Lords, is the Minister aware that government departments have run an education campaign about all drugs, including cannabis, for more than 10 years? I believe that we have just discovered why such education campaigns are not very successful.
	I declare an interest. I have been involved in providing day care treatment for drug addicts in London for many years. I also now chair the Mentor Foundation, which is the leading drug prevention organisation in Britain. Therefore, over the past 15 years I have listened to a lot of Statements about drugs in your Lordships' House. I wonder whether the Minister is aware that, apart from a few details, that Statement could have been made at any time over the past 15 years.
	The noble and learned Lord told your Lordships that the policy focuses on class A drugs. Does he believe that we have not been focusing on class A drugs for the past 25 years? We have. He talked about extending treatment services. I welcome that and, of course, I welcome the new money. We welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, and her National Treatment Agency. That is a good step forward. But there is a very simple answer to why those treatment services do not work. There are not enough of them; they are colossally under-funded; there are not enough places; and the standards are too low. It is fairly simple.
	The noble and learned Lord said that education is very important. It is, but have we not just heard an example of how difficult it is to educate people about drugs? The noble and learned Lord talked about departmental co-ordination. Of course, he is right. I cannot remember—perhaps the noble and learned Lord can help me—how many Ministers from that Front Bench have stood at the Dispatch Box and talked about co-ordination.
	Is the noble and learned Lord aware—probably he is not—of how excited the drugs world was when, in 1997, the Prime Minister made it clear that his Government would focus on drugs? He appointed a co-ordinator, who resigned today. Then responsibility was moved and the Secretary of State took charge. Now the issue is back where it was in 1996—with a junior Minister at his department.
	The noble and learned Lord talked about prevention. That is very important. I spent two long, frustrating meetings in the noble and learned Lord's department. Is he aware that the prevention strategy that was written up so carefully in 1997 simply does not exist?
	I could not—nor would I wish to—address every point in this complex Statement. Some of it is very good and some of it is very sensible. But is the noble and learned Lord aware that, when he tells the House that this is a winning strategy, no one believes him? No one who works in the field considers it to be a winning strategy. He also said that he would like to have a mature and intelligent debate. My last question is whether the House can have a mature, intelligent debate. We have not been able to debate a drugs policy in your Lordships' House since before 1997. Does the noble and learned Lord believe that it would be a good thing if we were able to do so?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the last issue is a matter for the Business managers and I would not dream of trespassing into that dangerous territory. The experience of the noble Lord in dealing with drug addicts and people suffering from the effects of drugs is well known in this House. We all respect the work he has done. No one ever suggested that a drugs strategy would be easy to deliver.
	I detected in the noble Lord's response that he does not dispute the fact that the things said in the Statement are good things; the question is whether enough is being done. I shall make two points. First, this issue is treated as an extremely high priority. It is at the forefront of the priorities of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, and has been since he became Home Secretary. Secondly, as I indicated in the Statement, we have put significant additional amounts of money into fighting drugs. There will never be enough, but the problem has a high priority and we are doing our level best to deal with it.

Lord Prior: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord defended himself on the grounds that the MORI poll carried out at the end of last year gave him evidence to support his case. Is that the latest information he has? Is there not further evidence to suggest that that information is miles out of date?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, there has been much reporting and anecdotal evidence in relation to what is happening in Lambeth. The poll to which I referred is the most recent polling evidence with which I have been provided. If there is a later poll, I should be interested to hear about it.

Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware—I am sure he is not—that a friend of mine telephoned me the other day because, on visiting a friend, he walked through Brixton and was stopped on many occasions and offered drugs. He was simply horrified. He is a strong young man of six foot two inches, in his early thirties, and he felt vulnerable and concerned.
	Does the noble and learned Lord think that Brixton is out of control as regards drugs and drug pushing? If so, many people will shy away from Brixton and it will become a no-go area. If that is the result of the experiment, it is not very good.
	Following the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, can the Minister tell the House about the effect of cannabis on mentally ill people who take legal drugs. What happens when the two are mixed? Can he also comment on terminally ill people who have campaigned for years to use cannabis legally as part of their treatment? They say that cannabis helps them. Why not include them in an experiment? They are willing people, who say that cannabis helps them. As they are terminally ill, perhaps the damaging effects of the drug are not so important. They want to use it, and we should do all we can to help people in their last stages of life.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, obviously I was not aware of the conversation referred to by the noble Baroness. However, the point being made is whether drug dealing is increasing dramatically in Lambeth or Brixton. That is the essence of the first part of the question. There is no statistical evidence that there have been more dealers in Lambeth since the cannabis scheme started in July 2001. However, as I said, there has been anecdotal evidence. The evidence given by the noble Baroness is obviously anecdotal to that extent.
	Dealer arrest figures, which have just been provided by the Metropolitan Police, show that there have been 224 arrests for supplying class A drugs from July 2001 to May 2002 compared with 204 arrests between July 2000 and June 2001. That is an increase of 10 per cent in 11 months, not 12 months. The Metropolitan Police acknowledge that certain areas have been a centre for crack supply for some years. The policing of crack and heroin has not been relaxed in any way as a result of the cannabis scheme. The police are taking tough action against dealers. As can be seen from the figures I have given, they have had some success. Obviously, one does not know the precise nature of the drugs offered to the friend of the noble Baroness. However, that is the view of the Metropolitan Police about what is happening in Lambeth. That should be set against all the other available evidence.
	I turn to the effect of cannabis on the mental health of people taking legal drugs. It would be unwise to try to answer that question from the Dispatch Box. However, perhaps I may deal with that point when I write to the noble Lord, Lord Waddington. We have indicated that we should welcome further tests to discover the effect of cannabis as a palliative. That is not in relation to the terminally ill. However, in order to give the correct answer, I would need notice of the question. Perhaps I may write to the noble Baroness.

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill

House again in Committee on Clause 15.
	[Amendment No. 107B not moved.]

Earl Russell: moved Amendment No. 108:
	Page 9, line 25, leave out paragraph (d).

Earl Russell: During the course of the debate on the Bill I shall talk a good deal about rights. Rights include those of noble Lords to an occasional night's sleep. Therefore, with the leave of the Committee, I propose to group together six of the amendments I have tabled in the hope that one slightly longer speech may take rather less time than six short speeches, and in the hope that it may clarify the issues I want to debate.
	The amendments I want to group together are Amendment No. 108, which gives the power to make regulations in which applications for support may not be considered; Amendment No. 110, which would delete a regulation-making power not to consider a person to be destitute; Clause 21 stand part, which involves the requirement to reside in an accommodation centre; Clause 23 stand part, which concerns the right of the Home Secretary to withdraw support; Amendment No. 122, which imposes the power of curfew, and Amendment No. 139A, which allows a restriction of support to those who are in accommodation specified. That does not succeed in covering all the amendments which deal either with the requirement to reside or the right to withhold support. Where possible, I shall try not to spend any time on the others, unless they raise separate issues.
	My principal concern is that which was expressed most of the way through yesterday's proceedings by my noble friend Lord Greaves. He was concerned that the power to require people to reside in accommodation centres, combined with the power to withdraw support may have the effect of making the accommodation centres creep inch by inch into the area of detention centres.
	There is a grey area between imprisonment and liberty. House arrest is a classic example. It was a clear issue of parliamentary proceedings in 1628. It is difficult to resolve the boundary between imprisonment and unlawful detention. My concern about the amendment is that the two powers taken together shall not be so used as to become unlawful detention. If they do, that would involve not only the misgivings of these Benches and of the Chamber, but it would engage the courts in powers of arbitrary imprisonment, the Human Rights Act and Strasbourg. That might lead the Government into rather deeper waters than those in which they wish to walk.
	The Oakington judgment caused a good deal of thought in the Home Office. It created an unresolved dialogue. Clause 22, which we on these Benches welcome, provides a right to give support outside accommodation centres. That is good. But Clause 23 provides the right to withdraw such support. Clearly, a dialogue is still in progress about which of those powers the Government intend to implement. In fact, they have kept their options open.
	I shall not be greedy. I shall not try to insist that the Minister accepts all these amendments. But he has a choice to make if he wants to put himself legally in the clear. He must retreat either on the power to make residing in the accommodation centre compulsory or on the power to withhold support. It will be his decision as to which of those he does.
	I am not at all sure what he will do about this matter, but he is running himself into some fairly deep legal water. If he goes into a question which might get him into detention, he will have to engage with Article 5.1(f) of the European Convention on Human Rights. I think that he will probably be in the clear where he is dealing with people whose removal has already been decided on. Article 5.1(f) authorises,
	"the lawful arrest or detention . . . of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition".
	I do not make an issue of that.
	However, we have talked for most of today about the need to detain people who are making an application and still hoping for success. I doubt whether that is covered in the first words of Article 5.1(f), which authorise,
	"the . . . detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry into the country".
	Under Article 31 of the refugee convention, I hardly think that the people in the accommodation centre, making lawful applications for asylum, should be construed as having made unlawful entry into the country and be detained for that purpose. Therefore, I do not think that the Government can rely on that. If they cannot, they must engage with Article 5.2 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It states:
	"Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a language which he understands, of the reasons for his arrest and of any charge against him".
	That applies to detention and will be dealt with in later stages of the Bill. But I do not think that the Government want that to apply to ordinary accommodation centres. They will have to modify their position somewhat if they are to avoid that.
	The Government will also, on the withdrawal of support, have to take account of the argument of the Joint Committee on Human Rights—which I read with a great deal of interest—that the withdrawal of support constitutes inhuman or degrading treatment under Article 3 of the convention. I do not know whether there is any case law on that subject. But it is a high-powered committee which would not make such suggestions lightly.
	If I were the Government, I would be reluctant to put that particular point to the issue in the courts. For one thing, it would not look particularly good while the debate was in progress. Nor would I be entirely confident of success. I would not be entirely certain of failure. But it is a matter on which one does not particularly want to become a lawyer's "interesting case".
	I am also interested in Article 24 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, which provides that refugees shall be accorded the same treatment as is accorded to nationals in matters of social security.
	I know that the Government will say that that does not apply. They will rely on the judgment in 1996 of Lord Justice Simon Brown in ex parte B. He accepted the Treasury's contention that the word "refugee" applies only to those whose claims to asylum have already been accepted.
	I believe that it could be argued that, in a judgment which was otherwise extremely critical of the Government, that remark by Lord Justice Simon Brown was obiter. It was a matter which had not been argued before him. It was not material to the resolution of the case and was not supported by any body of argument. It also contradicts the wording of the UNHCR handbook.
	In matters of interpreting the UN Convention on refugees, the proper guide to the intention of the legislature is the UNHCR handbook. It is its convention. It also seems to be contrary to the plain words of Article 1, which state that a refugee is any person who is outside the territory of his country with a well-founded fear of persecution and therefore unable or unwilling to avail himself of its protection. There is nothing there whatever about the need to have had one's application accepted.
	There is also the authority of the judgment in 1993 of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan in the Khaboka case. He accepted the meaning of the UN convention put forward by UNHCR and regarded the point as "absolutely clear". The Government would be unwise to take it as impossible that any future judge will follow the line taken by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan. It is perfectly possible that they might.
	In this context, the power of curfew makes it look even more like a detention, and the power, which I have taken up in Amendment No. 139A, to refuse support to those who do not reside in the accommodation centre looks suspiciously like a penalty. This at least is near cousin to detention. I think that the Government—unless they have more confidence in the courts than the Home Secretary usually appears to show—would be unwise to let these matters be resolved in the courts. I beg to move.

Lord Avebury: Amendment No. 122, which deals with the power of curfew, is grouped with this set of amendments. When the Minister replies, perhaps he can say a bit more about how the Government intend to apply the power for the Secretary of State to make regulations. Under those regulations he can impose conditions requiring,
	"a person not to be absent from the [accommodation] centre during specified hours without the permission of the Secretary of State or the manager".
	That sounds as though the Government intend to lock these centres up at a fixed hour in the evening. No one will thereafter be allowed to enter or depart. It is rather like the old days in an Oxford college when the gates were locked—if I remember rightly—at 10 o'clock. My noble friend Lord Russell says that he still bears the scars.
	I used to have a room on staircase 14 in Balliol with a drainpipe running up to the window. My sleep was disturbed almost every night with people coming in after the fixed hour.
	I do not suppose that there will be drainpipes outside the accommodation centres. But if the noble Lord proposes to impose that kind of restriction on people, then we should know about it at this stage and not wait until the regulations are published.
	In any normal society in this country people go about their business in the evening. They go out to the cinema, to the pub and to visit friends. Obliging people in accommodation centres to return at a fixed hour every evening would place an unreasonable restriction on their freedom to do what every other person in this country can easily do without any restriction.
	Furthermore, under the provision in the following subsection, if a person breaches that condition, he can immediately be deprived of his right to remain in the accommodation centre. As I understand it, he would be cast into outer darkness without any means of support. What do the Government think will happen in these cases? Let us suppose that the person who inadvertently comes in late one evening has a family. The offence is absolute; there is no qualification. The Bill does not say that he will be subject to the penalty if he has no reasonable grounds for failing to returning by the specified hour. That is why we need the Minister to spell this out in far more detail, so that we can judge whether to give these powers, knowing how they will be exercised.

Lord Kingsland: The mesmerising oratory of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has almost expunged from my mind what I had intended to say. He is right, of course, to say that if the restrictions on the activities of someone in an accommodation centre are so severe that they amount in effect to detention, then those restrictions must meet all the legal criteria laid down, both by the convention and by our own courts, in permitting it.
	In addition, I suggest that the Minister has to take into account bail criteria. It is not enough to say: "So long as I meet the detention criteria, I can introduce what restrictions I like". I suggest that the Minister must also apply the circumstances in which someone detained in an accommodation centre ought to have been granted bail and, therefore, freedom of movement. So there are two gateways through which these restrictions must pass in order to be valid in law.
	I have a question of my own for the Minister. In circumstances where an asylum seeker breaches restrictions made on him in an accommodation centre before the final decision about his status is determined, would his so-called bad behaviour have any effect on the way in which the ultimate decision was reached?

Lord Filkin: I acknowledge with some appreciation the grouping that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has undertaken. It allows for a potentially more efficient consideration of these issues. We need that, given the distance that we have to go in the proper scrutiny of the Bill.
	My response at this stage will be the Government's view of these matters, but I do not want to be rapid or rash in my response to the points raised on these clauses by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. On this occasion, it may be useful if I take some time to reflect on them, and either respond or not on or before Report if it would seem wise to do so. I hope that both noble Lords will take this as an interim response pending further reflection.
	I shall deal first with some of the specific points raised by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, before painting the overall picture of the Government's view on these issues. On the points about Article 5 and the ECHR and preventing a person affecting an unauthorised entry, the meaning of this is subject to the decision of the House of Lords in the Oakington case, which we are still awaiting, as the noble Earl knows. In any event, there is no intention to detain at an accommodation centre. It is not our intention that the conditions set out in Clause 27 will amount to detention or to drift towards that, which was clearly the central thrust of the question.
	With regard to withdrawal of support breaches under Article 3, the answer is: we believe not. Simple destitution alone would not in our view meet the minimum level of severity required under Article 3. The withdrawal of support could potentially breach Article 3, but whether it is breached will be a matter of fact in each case. We shall take decisions on withdrawing support on a case by case basis, with a clear awareness of the potential challenge and risk that might be implied by engaging Article 3. We consider that Article 24 of the UN convention on refugees applies only to recognised refugees.
	The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, raised the question of whether bail rights should be considered. We suggest that this is not necessary because this is not detention. Essentially, the noble Lord's challenge was that if it moved towards detention, then bail rights might do so. We shall seek to ensure that it is not detention.

Lord Kingsland: My point, which I ought to have made more clearly than I did, was that, in looking at the limits to restrictions that can be placed on the freedom of movement of someone in an accommodation centre, the test should be, first, the detention test, providing a kind of floor below which the Secretary of State could not fall. Above that, there should also be the bail test; namely, even if an individual was in detention, given all the circumstances, would a court have granted that person bail? This provides a second gateway through which the Secretary of State has to pass before he can impose a restriction on an individual at an accommodation centre. That was the point that I wanted to make.

Lord Filkin: As usual, the noble Lord was not unclear. He was explicitly clear on his first point. What was not set out was my response. I am still going to leave that in store. I shall reflect on it and come back to him, if I might.
	The noble Lord raised a point about breach of conditions on bad behaviour and whether that would engage the credibility of an asylum case. This is clearly extremely sensitive territory. It is obvious that it does not automatically do so. Perhaps I may give an example that was used in another place. If someone in an accommodation centre was frequently absent without the approval of the centre and without acceptable reasonable grounds, and if he was then found to be working illegally in a job which had been arranged before his arrival in the United Kingdom, such circumstances might be relevant to the credibility of the claim. Clearly, I am choosing my words carefully, but I seek to illustrate a circumstance in which it is possible that a breach of the understanding and expectations in an accommodation centre might engage the credibility of the asylum claim. I preface that with a clear statement that this is not by any means an automatic situation—not for one second—and one has to be extremely careful in these matters that there is a clear relationship between the two or more sets of events.
	The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked whether coming in late would be a breach of a person's residence conditions. The aim, under the conditions in Clause 27, is that the Secretary of State should act reasonably and that reasonable conditions of residence should be set to try to ensure that a centre is a place where people can live as a community with some reasonable consideration for each other. At the same time, we want to ensure that the person has fulfilled his obligations to be present in an accommodation centre as part of his side of what is effectively an understanding of his receiving the support applied for on the grounds that he has stated that he is destitute and needs help from the state.
	The Secretary of State is not obliged to withdraw support for breaches of conditions. Nor would it be right automatically to do so. Each decision to withdraw support would have to be taken individually. It would have to be proportionate and reasonable. In most circumstances, one would expect that it would be taken only after a process of proper warnings and communication. We are talking about human beings. One would seek to draw to the person's attention the fact that there was a breach, to hear any views about the breach, to affirm that the breach was serious if, in the light of that, it was felt to be so, and to point out potential consequences.

Earl Russell: Would the decisions to withdraw support be judicially reviewable?

Lord Filkin: They would certainly be appealable. Therefore, I expect that they would also be judicially reviewable if there were felt to be a failure of process in the appeal. We shall come to that when I speak more fully in a moment.

Lord Avebury: I am sorry to pile one interruption upon another, but the Minister has not answered my question. At what time will those restrictions be imposed, bearing in mind that the four centres the Government intend to build are not immediately adjacent to a large town? If someone wants to go out for a drink in the evening or wishes to attend a cinema, he must be allowed reasonable time to do so and to return to the centre. If a restriction were imposed that everyone had to be in by midnight, they could not lead a normal social life and comply with that condition.

Lord Filkin: The detail of what one might call house rules on considerate behaviour towards other residents will need to be considered by the Government in regulations and by the centre management with regard to how those are developed. For example, speaking loosely, one could envisage that if there were young children it might be unreasonable to come in at two or three o'clock in the morning and start making a lot of noise, because people have a right to their sleep. On the other hand, people are not being detained in accommodation centres. They are also expected to be able to lead a normal life.
	The best analogy I can give relates to the block of flats in which I live. I have a certain amount of freedom in what I can do, but I do not have freedom to play my music system after eleven o'clock at night. One seeks to have house rules that reflect other people's needs. In some senses, those are slightly different from the issue of fulfilling residence obligations in the accommodation centre. If a person is in an accommodation centre, the Government—the state—say, "We shall provide you with accommodation and support in what we hope will be a very decent place, but you are expected to give evidence that you are living there rather than living somewhere else without approval". In that area, there have to be some expectations and some warnings were a person repeatedly to breach the expectations of occupation in the centre.
	Without getting myself into trouble, let me give an example. If someone wanted to go away for a night or two because there was a family funeral at the other end of the country, one could not imagine that that would not be allowed. But if someone repeatedly wanted to be away for two or three nights a week one would expect the centre manager to inquire why that person was going away for two or three nights, particularly if that were without permission, when they were expected to live in the accommodation centre to receive the support from the state for which they asked.
	I leave it at that point. There are two issues: fulfilling the residence requirements and house behaviour. No doubt we can debate those issues further if appropriate.
	I now place on the record the Government's general position and explain why we do not think that opposition Amendments Nos. 108, 110, 122 and 139A are appropriate. Equally, we think it important that Clauses 21 and 23 stand part of the Bill.
	On Amendment No. 108, Clause 15 sets out a category of persons who can be supported within an accommodation centre: that is, asylum seekers and their dependants who are destitute, or likely to become destitute within a period to be prescribed. It also contains a power to make regulations to set out the particular procedure to be followed in providing such accommodation and gives examples of particular provisions which can be included in such regulations. Amendment No. 108 would prevent the Secretary of State being able to specify in regulations the circumstances in which an application may not be considered.
	We need this ability to ensure the process works as smoothly and efficiently as possible. A particular example of the type of circumstance which is likely to be included is that an application may not be considered where the appropriate application form has not been completed. If we are to process applications efficiently it is necessary to make these requirements and ensure that those who are seeking support comply with our procedures for the benefit of all concerned. We believe that Amendment No. 108 would lead to potential delays and confusion in the application process.
	On Amendment No. 110, Clause 17 contains a definition of destitution. Subsection (6) allows the Secretary of State to make regulations. Paragraph (a) makes clear that the regulations may include provision for a person not to be treated as destitute in specified circumstances. The amendment would prevent the Secretary of State specifying circumstances in regulations where an application for support in an accommodation centre may not be considered; that is, when a person is not to be treated as destitute.
	We believe that there is nothing sinister in Clause 17(6)(a). The power reflects an existing provision in Schedule 8 to the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. The asylum support regulations made under that Act specify the circumstances which are likely to be equally applicable for accommodation centres. They include, for example, a person who is eligible for interim support from a local authority under the Asylum Support (Interim Provisions) Regulations 1999 and a person who is eligible for social security benefits. Clearly, people eligible for support under other provisions should not be able to benefit from additional support. The asylum support regulations currently also excluded persons who have not made a claim for asylum. Again, we anticipate following a similar approach for accommodation centres. Naturally, we do not want to support non-asylum seekers under asylum support provisions. It is sensible to spell out these categories in secondary legislation so that the position is clear. Amendment No. 110 would prevent that.
	Clause 21 is important because it sets out the relationship between provisions in Part 2 of the Bill and paragraph 21 of Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act, paragraph 2(5) of Schedule 3 to the 1971 Act and Section 4 of the 1999 Act.
	A person subject to entry control may be examined by immigration officers to determine whether he is admitted to the UK and, if so, on what terms. Persons in that position are liable to detention but may be temporarily admitted as an alternative to being detained pending examination of their claim. Where they are granted temporary admission, they may be subject to residence and reporting requirements; similarly for people released from detention pending deportation.
	Clause 21 makes clear that a residence requirement under paragraph 2(5) of Schedule 3 to the 1971 Act may include a requirement to reside at an accommodation centre in the same way as a person may currently be required to reside at a private address or NASS accommodation. Clause 21 also makes clear that where a person is required to leave the accommodation centre following, for example, a breach of conditions, he is treated as having broken the residence restriction imposed under the Immigration Act 1971. This means that he may be liable for detention under current detention policy in the same way as a person breaching a residence restriction imposed at the present time under the Immigration Act 1971. This is an important part of our approach to honouring our obligations and expecting compliance with our procedures as a result.
	Clause 23 deals with the withdrawal of accommodation centre support about which we have spoken. We need some protection against abuse of our asylum support system. The clause sets out that support may be stopped where the Secretary of State suspects that a person or a dependant has committed an offence set out in Clause 30—for example, a person making false representations with a view to obtaining support for himself or any other person or a person making dishonest representations with a view to obtaining any benefit or other payment or advantage for himself or any other person. Support may also be stopped if a person or a dependant of his has failed to comply with any directions as to the time or manner of travel to an accommodation centre.
	If support has been stopped under one of those provisions, it is right that we should be able to take account of that if a further application for support is made. We want to make sure that people are aware of the consequences of their actions. If they do not comply, they should not automatically expect to benefit in the same way as those who are fully compliant.
	Clause 23(3) also allows the Secretary of State to take into account the fact that support has been withdrawn from a person following a breach of condition at an accommodation centre. Conditions of residence will be set out in regulations made under Clause 27 and will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. I hope that that will be helpful.
	The provisions are entirely consistent with those in the Asylum Support Regulations 2000. Regulation 20 deals with the suspension or discontinuation of support. Stopping support is a serious matter. We would assess cases on their merits and consider the precise circumstances of each case before taking that option. However, if our systems are to command the confidence of all those here and of the asylum seekers themselves, we must make clear what we expect of those who seek sanctuary and what may happen if our hospitality is abused. Asylum seekers whose support is withdrawn under the provisions of Clause 23 have the safeguard of a right of appeal to the asylum support adjudicator, as I said.
	Amendment No. 122 would fundamentally undermine our policy for accommodation centres. We have made it clear that we intend residents to be subject to reporting and residence requirements. That is a crucial part of providing better contact management. If we cannot require accommodation centre residents to be present in the centre at specified times—such as overnight—how can we be sure of their whereabouts? It is a sad fact that some asylum seekers abuse our systems. I shall not go on about that. Our study of what happens in Denmark produced evidence that, in some circumstances, people will live elsewhere, if there is no residence requirement.
	It may help if I make clear that, in operating residence conditions under Clause 27, the Secretary of State is obliged to be reasonable. That is an explicit and enforceable principle of administrative law. We will not make asylum seekers subject to unreasonable residence conditions. We want the centres to be self-contained communities in which people can live as normally as possible. As I said, we expect that someone who wanted to visit a relative for a particular reason would be permitted to do so under Clause 27(3).
	In short, if people behave reasonably—we have made clear our expectations—and do not abuse our hospitality, they should be able to abide by the residence conditions with minimal fuss and with minimal impact on their daily life. There would also be an understanding that exceptional circumstances would require reasonable consideration.
	The Government cannot accept Amendment No. 139A. Taking a power to end the provision of subsistence-only support is wholly consistent with our policy of developing a more managed asylum system and developing ways of keeping better contact with asylum seekers during the asylum process. Given what we have discussed, it is clear that the replacement of the present system of dispersed accommodation with accommodation centres is some time in the future. Indeed, there is no certainty that that will happen; it is equally plausible that we might have a mixed system including some centres and some dispersal. However, if it does happen, we intend to offer support only in those accommodation centres.
	Under current arrangements, asylum seekers can stay with friends or relatives and claim support to cover essential living needs. We have no control over where they live, which makes it difficult to maintain contact. As the Committee knows, large numbers of those who take up cash-only support remain in London and the South East. As of December 2001, over 17,000 of the 25,000-plus asylum seekers taking subsistence-only support lived in London. That presents problems and does nothing to help alleviate the pressure on services in the areas that the introduction of the dispersal scheme was designed to help. In deciding whether and when to exercise the power, the Government will take all relevant factors into consideration, including our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights.
	It is anticipated that any increase in accommodation costs will be offset by savings delivered elsewhere in the asylum system as a result of improved contact. I recognise that we are talking about events that are conjectural and some way into the future. However, the power must be there, should we need to cross that bridge.
	I hope that the assurances that I have offered—for now, at least—will be sufficient to allow the noble Earl to withdraw the amendment.

Earl Russell: I am grateful to the Minister for the care, courtesy and consideration with which he has handled the amendments. In offering to reflect on them over the summer, he has offered me the central assurance for which I asked.
	I am painfully aware that I am not a lawyer. What I said should be regarded as being, largely, in the interrogative mode. If I can be certain that the Government will consult their legal advisers and consider with them whether there is any weight in the questions that I have raised, I will have achieved my main purpose. For that, I thank the Minister warmly.
	Some questions remain. I was relieved by what the Minister said about the reasonableness required by Clause 27. I hope that that will meet some of the points raised by my noble friend Lord Avebury. When he spoke on Clause 21, he made clear the element of compulsion in that clause. I happen to know a Kosovar refugee who has settled in London. She would, I think, have come to London in any case because she wanted to be near to be near her sister who lives here. That is not unreasonable. Making it compulsory not to do it would raise questions.
	The Minister skilfully and carefully considered the accommodation centres and the withdrawal of support as two separate lines of argument. However, the central point of what I said was that, in such cases, they may need to be taken jointly, not severally. It is the combination of the compulsion to reside with the penalty—we must call it that—of withdrawal of support from someone who breaches it that raises questions in my mind about whether that might amount to a form of detention.

Lord Filkin: Having said that I would reflect on the points raised, I shall add that point to the pile that the noble Earl has already offered me.

Earl Russell: That is exactly the note on which I was about to conclude my remarks. I thank the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 15 agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 109 not moved.]
	Clause 16 agreed to.
	Clause 17 [Destitution: definition]:
	[Amendment No. 110 not moved.]
	Clause 17 agreed to.
	Clause 18 [Dependant: definition]:

Lord Bhatia: moved Amendment No. 110A:
	Page 11, line 9, at end insert—
	"( ) is over 18 years of age"

Lord Bhatia: I want to raise another issue relating to children in the accommodation centres. Earlier, we debated Amendment No. 107, which dealt with the issue of providing education for children in accommodation centres. My amendment deals with the issue of whether children should be placed in accommodation centres with their families. It would also be useful to consider whether children should be placed in the proposed accommodation centres at all. That issue has not been explored in the Bill's passage to date. but it should be an important consideration for us.
	Children's charities and refugee organisations are concerned that accommodation centres will not afford children the care and protection they need and will not uphold their rights under human rights law. My amendment would ensure that children and their families were not housed in accommodation centres. It would mean that dependants of asylum seekers, as defined in Clause 18, would not include children. There are concerns that because of the repeated reforms of the support arrangements for asylum seekers, children are losing out. We cannot continue to experiment with children's lives by testing policies on them to see whether they are feasible and withdrawing them after some children have been irreparably damaged. If there are genuine fears that living in accommodation centres could do lasting harm to a child's development, the policy should not proceed.
	An understanding of the degree of trauma, upheaval and loss that children seeking asylum have suffered should always be uppermost in our minds as we determine policies that impact on them. Their emotional and mental health are likely to be extremely fragile and they will often be disorientated, confused and frightened. They will need specialist, and sensitive care and support.
	It is highly unlikely that accommodation centres of the kind proposed will provide the right kind of care and support in the best environment for the child. Moreover, placing children in institutions that are not focused on meeting their individual needs is likely to delay substantially the healing process, if not exacerbate their problems, by adversely affecting their development and well-being.
	As we know, the centres will be large, sited in remote places and insular in so far as they will not encourage residents to engage with the local community by providing all services on site. Is that the environment that any of us would wish for our own children? More to the point, should we force such an environment on extremely vulnerable children, many of whom will have acute needs?
	The Government have sought to justify their proposals by saying that most asylum seekers who are recognised as refugees will remain in the accommodation centres for only two months, but in Standing Committee in response to calls to have a six-month limit on a stay in an accommodation centre, Angela Eagle said that six months was a "tough call" in terms of processing claims.
	The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child should provide our guiding principles in all decisions relating to children. The convention provides a critical standard against which our treatment of children seeking asylum can be assessed. In particular, the best interests principle, which is set out in Article 3 of the convention, should be our overriding consideration as we develop policy. Children's charities point out that the Government have failed to demonstrate that placing children and young people in accommodation centres is in the best interests of those children.
	The placement of children and their families in accommodation centres also gives rise to serious concerns under other articles of the convention. Under Article 6, there is a duty on the state to ensure to the maximum extent possible the development of the child. Article 15 refers to freedom of association, but living in isolated areas will make it difficult for families to make cultural links and participate in normal community life. The communal experience of accommodation centres may militate against the rights of children to privacy and a family life, to which Articles 16 and 18 refer. Families will be denied a say in the location and type of accommodation that would best meet their needs and the best interests of their children under Articles 5 and 18. The removal of opportunities for children to participate in social, leisure, recreational and cultural activities available to other children in the UK is covered by Article 31. Children will be denied a voice in major decisions that affect them, to which Article 12 refers.
	All those concerns were considered by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which concluded that the most serious concerns were in respect of Articles 3, 12, 15 and 31. In particular, the Committee emphasised that the duty on the Government under Article 3 is to make the best interests of the child the primary consideration in all actions concerning children. In respect of Article 15, which sets out children's rights in relation to freedom of association, the Committee stated:
	" . . . in our view, it would be a matter of real concern if life in an accommodation centre for destitute asylum seekers and their dependants were to be regarded as an example of that 'normal community life' with which children are entitled to make cultural links and in which they are entitled to participate. We accept that the Department intends to make efforts to make life in the centres as pleasant as possible, but such a life would be inherently abnormal by most people's standards. It would also be likely to be somewhat cut off from local communities. The proposal to educate most children inside the accommodation centres rather than in local schools . . . would deprive the children of an important opportunity to forge links with the local community, and could delay the process of integrating into the community those who are successful in establishing a right to remain. Making links is likely to be particularly difficult if accommodation centres are located in isolated areas, as seems to be quite possible in many cases. We are concerned that this will make it difficult to meet the requirements of children's rights under CRC Article 15".
	If it is in the best interests of children to be housed in accommodation centres, we would expect children seeking asylum to welcome the Government's proposals. However, young people consulted by Save the Children felt that accommodation centres were not a good idea for children and they were particularly concerned about being segregated from local communities. One of the children said:
	"Young people need to get out and experience things".
	Another said:
	"We will not be able to make friends, especially with local people"
	A third person said:
	"Some people [in accommodation centres] will make trouble and noise and there will be no space to be individual".
	What is the alternative to accommodation centres? We should not forget that, while the pilots are taking place, the vast majority of asylum seekers will still be dispersed in the normal way. More importantly, many organisations working with asylum seekers are of the view that dispersal is starting to work much better in some areas. Where the right infrastructure is in place and community partnerships of service providers have been built, there is growing evidence that dispersal placements can be very successful.
	The Government's operational review of the dispersal scheme last year, made a series of practical recommendations on how the dispersal system could be further improved. It addressed issues such as clustering, and improving communication between NASS and other local agencies better to prepare communities in dispersal areas and to ensure that there is a better match between children and families and the services that they need. But the Government have given no time for those recommendations to be implemented before coming up with yet another proposal on how to accommodate asylum seekers. That is difficult to understand, particularly given that the emerging evidence on dispersal was increasingly positive.
	The priority should be to improve existing services to enable children to access mainstream services and to piece their lives back together in as normal an environment as possible, rather than create new systems that divide, disrupt and exclude. The onus is on the Government to evaluate whether or not, according to objective criteria, it is in children's best interests to be placed in an accommodation centre rather than in their own home with their family in the community.
	The Government have failed to demonstrate, or even to argue that it is better for a child seeking asylum to be placed in an accommodation centre than in his own home. It is difficult, therefore, to accept the Government's claim that they treat such children as children first and foremost. Indeed, it seems that the rights and needs of those vulnerable children are being subordinated to the demands of an inflexible, politically driven asylum policy. I beg to move.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The Select Committee on Delegated Powers in its 24th report referred to this clause and Clauses 59 and 60. The report stated that the definition of dependant would be prescribed in regulations. However, a Home Office memorandum to the Committee before it considered the Bill suggested that the Government were thinking that they might define what a dependant was and could consequently remove the delegated power. Does the Minister know whether it was the Government's intention to do that? I do not think that an amendment has been tabled to that effect. To leave the definition to delegated legislation is slightly worrying and perhaps some of those worries were encapsulated in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia.

Lord Elton: Perhaps the Minister could at the same time tell us where to find the definition of "a prescribed class", mentioned in Clause 18. I cannot find it anywhere.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I was referring to that issue.

Lord Renton: With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, who has taken a great deal of trouble to put his case, I do not see how the Government can accept the amendment. It seems to conflict with Clause 16(1)(a), which states:
	"For the purposes of this Part a person is an 'asylum-seeker' if—
	(a) he is at least 18 years old".
	Here we are dealing with dependants. To provide that no one under the age of 18 can be a dependant could create immense hardship and trouble. I believe that a large proportion of the dependants will be teenagers between the ages of 13 and 17 inclusive. If they are not treated as dependants, with all the rights that the Bill gives to dependants, they could be deprived of accommodation, education and even medical treatment. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, would not want to see such a situation and therefore I hope and believe that the Government will reject the amendment.

Lord Filkin: The noble Lord is right. The amendment would prevent our supporting dependent children under the age of 18 in accommodation centres. In effect, it is a repeat of the previous debate. Having spoken rapidly and at, I thought, excessive length, I shall only weary the Committee if I repeat the points I made. In short, they are faster decision-making, the potential for high-quality education and support, and a proper evaluation which will be open for all to see.
	I shall not add further to that reply except to refer to why we believe that placing families with children in accommodation centres is in the best interests of the child. If the family is successful in its application, it is likely to happen faster and the family will then be able, at an earlier stage, to integrate into British society. If the family is not successful and is due to be removed, it will not be in the interests of the child for him to be integrated, only then to be removed. There is no reason to suppose that a place in an accommodation centre would breach the rights of the child. On the contrary, it would fully meet his needs at that stage.
	As regards the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, the definition of "dependants" is still under consideration. We intend to have a wider pragmatic definition of "dependant" and may well steer a leaner path to ensure flexibility to react to experience and changing circumstances.
	The noble Lord, Lord Elton, asked about the definition of "a prescribed class". Clause 33(1) provides that "prescribed" means prescribed by the Secretary of State by order or regulations. That is one of those delicious circular definitions for these purposes.
	Having made those points, I invite the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, to withdraw his amendment.

Earl Russell: On the point of definition of "dependant", could a person be taken to be a dependant because he was too old to be self-sufficient? As the Minister was speaking, I suddenly had a picture if Eneas emerging from the flames of Troy bearing his father on his shoulders.

Lord Filkin: Certainly in the common-sense understanding of the word, but I would need to reflect on whether that is the meaning we will want to give it in the regulations. The expectation was that we would be looking at children as dependants rather than older people. But we will reflect on the point.

Lord Elton: Perhaps the noble Lord will confirm that he referred to Clause 32(1). If so, the definition still eludes me.

Lord Filkin: If I said Clause 32(1) I was wrong. I should have said Clause 33(1), which is a repetition of the problem we had earlier.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I shall be brief. I wholly agree with the Minister that a debate on this issue would simply be a re-run of the debate on Amendment No. 107A. On the other hand, the debate in the Commons on the same amendment lasted 70 minutes. Until the Minister spoke, four Labour MPs representing London constituencies took part. I took the trouble to read the whole of that 70-minute debate comprising the views of Labour MPs. It reinforces powerfully the view of my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew, in the debate on Amendment No. 107A, that flexibility is immensely desirable. If trialing can include some of the points made in the debate in the Commons, so much the better.

The Lord Bishop of Hereford: We are in the sphere of speculation and conjecture, and I do not want to weary the Committee by prolonging the debate. However, some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, about what life might be like in an accommodation centre need to be taken seriously. There is the strange paradox that it would deny families the kind of privacy in which they are entitled to expect to live. Accommodation centres will be unnatural communities, probably intimidatory from time to time. At the same time, Article 15 on the rights of the child and freedom of association is breached. Confining families in accommodation centres, even with the theoretical possibility of going out and about, will not enable the children to experience any kind of normal life.
	It may be that the alternative is even worse. I know of many scandalous cases of immoral and irresponsible private landlords making life extremely unpleasant for asylum-seeking families. If that were the case and nothing could be done about it, life in accommodation centres would be less bad. It would certainly not be good. The best solution would be the better running of the dispersal system with better support for those dispersed into the community.
	Will the Minister reassure the Committee that real efforts are being made to support families who are dispersed so that they are not intimidated and that in the creation of communities in accommodation centres there will be both concentration on privacy and the possibility of the children being able to engage with community life more widely?

Lord Filkin: What the right reverend Prelate says about children having association while in accommodation centres is right. We will seek to foster that in their development. Seeking to make dispersal work better will be an objective of government policy, come what may, because on any conjecture of how quickly we move forward on accommodation centres, dispersal will be with us for some years. Therefore, the right reverend Prelate is right to mark it and we are signalling that we must seek to improve.

Lord Joffe: I support the amendment, which is different from Amendment No. 107A. That amendment dealt solely with the education of children in accommodation centres. This amendment proposes that children should never be placed in accommodation centres.
	I want to raise only one point in addition to those mentioned by my noble friend Lord Bhatia. There is much concern among children's charities about the child protection framework in accommodation centres. The information that has emerged through responses to questions in the other place raises serious concerns about the inferior level of protection that will be afforded children in accommodation centres and, indeed, whether the Government have properly thought through this aspect of their policy.
	It is disturbing that in an answer to a question raised in the other place on 10th June, the Government stated that accommodation centres will not have a statutory duty to have a policy on child protection but that such matters will be left to individual contractual arrangements. The Government have also stated that accommodation centres will not be required to register under the Care Standards Act 2000, even though they meet the criteria for a requirement to register as set out in that Act. I would be grateful if the Minister could advise us on whether all the relevant provisions of the Children Act 1989 will apply to children in accommodation centres.
	Children seeking asylum are particularly vulnerable. It is unjustifiable to place them in an institutional setting that has inferior child protection and welfare frameworks compared with those that must be in place by law for other children.

Lord Filkin: For the record, although the Committee may weary of hearing this, we do not accept the suggestion that life for families in accommodation centres will be poor. The centres will not be camps; they will be more akin to self-contained villages with all the facilities needed to enable people and their children to lead decent lives without fear.
	The categorical answer to the noble Lord's specific question whether the provisions of the Children Act 1989 will apply to children in accommodation centres is yes. Section 47 of the Act places a duty on local authorities to respond if they have reasonable cause to suspect that a child living in their area is suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm.

Lord Bhatia: I am grateful to the Minister for his views on the amendment. All Members of both Houses of Parliament must think first about the needs of children and secondly about the asylum process. Children are vulnerable. In many cases they will be isolated. Often they will be bewildered and confused. The best solution would be not to place such children in accommodation centres. Perhaps an element of flexibility should be introduced whereby families with young children seeking asylum should be allowed to live in the community from the start. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 18 agreed to.
	Clause 19 [Sections 15 to 18: supplementary]:

Viscount Allenby of Megiddo: I cannot call Amendment No. 111 because it has already been debated.

Earl Russell: I do not think that it has been debated. Does the Minister have an opinion on that?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Perhaps I may offer some clarification. We have a white sheet and a green sheet for the amendments. I think there is an error on the white sheet. That error has been corrected on the green sheet.
	While I have no great desire to ask for an extra debate, in all honesty and fairness I should point that out.

Viscount Allenby of Megiddo: I must apologise to the Committee. I am not in possession of the green sheet; I have the white sheet, which contains the error. Perhaps we may revert to Amendment No. 111.

Earl Russell: moved Amendment No. 111:
	Page 11, line 12, after "Secretary of State" insert ", after appropriate medical advice,"

Earl Russell: I am most grateful to the Minister and to the Deputy Chairman of Committees. I shall not take long over the amendment, which concerns proof of age. In societies that have not been through the transition from memory to written record, sometimes proof of age can be difficult.
	Some hilarious proceedings have been recorded in medieval and Tudor English jurisprudence in which every villager recollected that the birth of a child happened in the year when he broke his leg or when the church steeple was struck by lightning. These dates demonstrate many of the difficulties presented by the dates at the beginning of St. Luke's Gospel.
	Occasionally decisions by immigration officers are based purely on appearance at first sight, without making allowance for the very different rates and ways in which groups of people develop. The Bill provides that,
	"The Secretary of State may inquire into and decide a person's age".
	The amendment would insert the words, "after appropriate medical advice". That would not remove the possibility of error, but it would greatly lessen it. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: As ever I am grateful to the noble Earl for his discourse into history. Dates of birth are important in modern society. I recall being very excited when my son was born, but I am still unclear as to whether he was born five minutes before or five minutes after midnight. We settled on five minutes after the hour.
	The Government's position on this matter is simple and straightforward. It is necessary to be accurate and certain about a person's age. For that reason, the Secretary of State will need to establish age, because with it comes eligibility for different kinds of support. The principal issue here is that of single adults claiming to be unaccompanied minors. That is due to the perceived benefit of remaining within the area of the local authority providing support, which is often London or the South East.
	We believe that the amendment is unnecessary as all those claiming to be unaccompanied minors are referred to social services for an assessment before the Secretary of State makes a decision on their age. That decision will determine whether the applicant will be supported by the local authority or whether they would be eligible to be supported by the Secretary of State in an accommodation centre. Those aged 18 will fall to be supported by the Secretary of State. For that reason, the Secretary of State needs to have the power to determine age in order to minimise disputes.
	An equivalent provision enabling the Secretary of State to inquire into and decide a person's age for the purpose of provision of support through NASS is contained in Section 94(7) of the 1999 Act. That does not refer to medical advice.
	We are grateful to the noble Earl for the amendment, but we think that it is unnecessary and that the provisions in place will work well enough.

Lord Avebury: For the avoidance of any doubt, can the Minister confirm that X-rays are not used for age determination purposes? The matter was raised not long ago in this House. It was not apparent to some noble Lords, including noble Lords who are medically qualified, that in 1982 when the then Secretary of State went into the matter in some detail, it was decided that, on the benefit of medical advice—including advice from the British Medical Association—it was inappropriate to use X-rays for the purpose of age determination. The decision was reached because of the possible effects on the health of the child.
	Whatever advice and whatever inquiries the Secretary of State may pursue on determining the age of an applicant, I should be grateful for the Minister's assurance that X-rays will not be used.

Earl Russell: I was well aware that this provision was not included in the 1999 Act because I moved the same amendment at the time and received the same response.
	I do not think that social services are necessarily competent to take this decision. It is an expert medical matter. Rates of development can be very different. In the days when it was still open, I would regularly pass by St. George's School, Westminster. I would see members of the same class coming out of school. It was an inter-racial group. Young people who were clearly from the same class, obviously friends and contemporaries, looked to the casual observer as if in age they might differ by as much as five years. I do not believe that everyone in social services is competent to deal with that. It is a reasonably expert area of medicine.
	I hope that the Minister will think further on the matter, but I shall not pursue it this evening. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 19 agreed to.
	Clause 20 [Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, s. 5]:
	[Amendment No. 111A not moved.]
	Clause 20 agreed to.
	Clause 21 [Person subject to United Kingdom entrance control]:
	[Amendment No. 111B not moved.]
	Clause 21 agreed to.
	Clause 22 [Provisional assistance]:
	[Amendments Nos. 112 to 114 not moved.]
	Clause 22 agreed to.

Lord Filkin: moved Amendment No. 114A:
	After Clause 22, insert the following new clause—
	"LENGTH OF STAY: FAMILY WITH CHILDREN
	(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations requiring him to consider whether accommodation should be provided for a person and his dependants outside an accommodation centre under a provision of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (c. 33) where—
	(a) they have been residents of an accommodation centre for a continuous period of time specified in the regulations, and
	(b) at least one of the dependants is under 17.
	(2) The Secretary of State may make regulations requiring him to provide accommodation for a person and his dependants outside an accommodation centre under a provision of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (c. 33) where—
	(a) they have been residents of an accommodation centre for a continuous period of time specified in the regulations,
	(b) at least one of the dependants is under 17, and
	(c) the person requests that he and his dependants be provided with accommodation outside an accommodation centre.
	(3) Regulations under subsection (1) must provide that where paragraphs (a) and (b) of that subsection apply to a person and his dependants, the Secretary of State must consult the person in the course of the consideration required by that subsection.
	(4) Regulations under subsection (2) must provide that where paragraphs (a) and (b) of that subsection apply to a person and his dependants, the Secretary of State must give the person an opportunity to make a request of the kind referred to in paragraph (c).
	(5) Where the Secretary of State provides accommodation outside an accommodation centre in pursuance of regulations under this section he shall take any necessary steps to ensure that residence in the accommodation provided does not breach a residence restriction within the meaning of section 21.
	(6) The Secretary of State may inquire into and decide a person's age for the purpose of regulations under this section.
	(7) Section 45 is subject to regulations under this section."

Lord Filkin: As I said previously, we wish to bring forward an amendment at this stage of the Committee proceedings following the Home Secretary's announcements on Report in another place.
	We have listened carefully to the concerns expressed by organisations such as Save the Children and the Refugee Council about the length of time children may spend in accommodation centres. We recognise that a few months may seem much longer in the lives of younger children. We can also see the need to consider whether what one might call a more normal social setting outside an accommodation centre would be appropriate for children at a particular stage having regard to their developmental needs.
	The amendment therefore allows the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring him to consider a case after a period of time to be specified in regulations. I want to make it clear that we currently intend this period to be six months. At that stage the Secretary of State will consider whether a family should continue to be supported in an accommodation centre or whether support should be provided in a dispersal area. A number of relevant factors will be looked at—for example, the stage the asylum claim has reached and how soon a final determination will be reached.
	We also envisage the education provider at the accommodation centre producing a report or an assessment in which any particular developmental needs of the child could be raised. This clause makes it absolutely clear that the parents must be consulted.
	If the Secretary of State decides at the end of this six-month period that the family should remain in the accommodation centre, subsection (2) allows him to make regulations which would require him to provide accommodation to the family if they wish to leave after a period of time, which again will be specified in regulations. I want to make it clear that we currently intend this period to be nine months—that is, three months after the Secretary of State would have been required to consider the case.
	At that stage the parents must be given an opportunity to request that they be supported outside the accommodation centre. If they wish to move to a dispersal area at that point they will be able to. The only way they will remain in the accommodation centre is if they themselves wish to. There will be no power for the Secretary of State to require their further stay for any other reason.
	Government Amendment No. 134A is consequential and sets out that regulations made under this clause will be subject to the negative resolution procedure.
	So we have listened and responded accordingly. However, I want to emphasis some important points in general. Accommodation centres are designed to provide a supportive environment for asylum seekers. Those who have come seeking refuge will have a roof over their heads, adequate food, activities to occupy their time, interpretation facilities and will be in contact with many other residents who speak the same language. They will also be in a centre which is designed to keep them informed about the progress of their case so that they are not left bewildered and understand fully what we expect of them in return. I beg to move.

Lord Renton: The Minister is well justified in moving this new clause. However there is one item in it that he should reconsider. Subsection (1)(b) of the proposed new clause states:
	"at least one of the dependants is under 17".
	Surely that should be "under 18". Elsewhere in the Bill the age of 18 is regarded as the age of maturity. To choose 17 creates a rather unusual situation. I do not expect the Minister to reply at once, but I suggest that on Report he should consider amending it to 18 rather than 17.

Lord Dholakia: I welcome the amendment. We discussed yesterday the role of the visiting committees and the monitor. It would be very helpful if information of this nature was examined very thoroughly in order that no pressure is put on a family to stay in an accommodation centre. There should be an independent assessment of people's needs and there should be no pressure put upon them to stay there.

Baroness Whitaker: I warmly support my noble friend's amendment. He knows that I believe six months is a rather long time for a child. I hope to press him to reduce the period.
	My question relates to subsection (3) which states that,
	"the Secretary of State must consult the person"—
	by which he means, I think, the parents. I remind him that the Joint Committee on Human Rights complained that the department—that is, the Home Office—appeared to envisage the children's parents acting as the main channel for children's views. I draw to his attention that the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child requires due weight to be given to the views of children—all children—particularly in any judicial or administrative proceedings affecting them. That appears under Articles 12(1) and 12(2). Perhaps my noble friend will confirm that he envisages the children themselves being consulted under the amendment.

Earl Russell: This amendment also has been moved in response to representations from my honourable friend Mr Hughes. It is one of considerable importance to these Benches and to our attitude to other parts of the Bill. I am extremely grateful to the Minister for the care and trouble he has taken with it and for his serious efforts to be helpful.
	He is of course handicapped by the extremely wide, permissive language in which regulations are now normally drafted. The amendment refers to,
	"a continuous period of time specified in the regulations".
	Like the Minister, we shall need to reflect and consult during the Summer Recess. Is there any chance whatever of our seeing the draft regulations during the Recess? This would materially assist us in regard to matters to do with Clause 31.
	Is the Minister saying that it will always be the case that people will need to be held in the centre during the six plus three period while their appeals are being considered, or will there be some cases where after the six months they may be allowed out? Will the Government allow flexibility in such cases or not? Anything the Minister can say to help us on this matter will be taken very seriously and discussed very carefully.

Lord Filkin: As to the good question of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, about why not under 18, let me give him the Government's response. This will give him two or three months to reflect on the matter before we come back on Report.
	We have made it under 17 because we believe that the situation is different for those of compulsory school age and below. Young people aged 18 and over will be able to seek, for example, voluntary activities in the local community or attend further education outside the accommodation centre, subject to meeting the requirements of colleges. So there is more opportunity for people of that age to address any concerns about developmental needs.
	The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, made good points in regard to visiting committees and the monitor. One would expect that these are the kind of issues that could well be within their purview to ensure that people and families were being treated appropriately in the centre.
	As to the points raised by my noble friend Lady Whitaker, she will not be surprised to hear—I said this a few minutes ago—that there is no change in our position in regard to six months. It is right that parents or the person in the parental role should be consulted. When conducting his consideration, there is nothing to prevent the Secretary of State taking into account the views of the child. We shall consider slightly more positively how best to do this.
	I am absolutely certain that it will come as no shock to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that it is unlikely that draft regulations will be available during the Summer Recess. However, we could have further discussions on these issues in order to focus down on areas of particular concern. I should be delighted to do so if that would be helpful.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clauses 23 to 25 agreed to.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: moved Amendment No. 115:
	After Clause 25, insert the following new clause—
	"PROHIBITION OF PERSONS DISQUALIFIED FROM WORKING WITH CHILDREN FROM WORKING IN ACCOMMODATION CENTRES: AMENDMENT OF SECTION 36 OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND COURT SERVICES ACT 2000 (C. 43)
	There shall be inserted after section 36(2)(a) of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 (c. 43) (meaning of "regulated position")—
	"(aa) an accommodation centre provided under section 14 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002,""

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: This amendment, by which I hope to remedy a perhaps unintended loophole left by the Government, is essential for the welfare of children who will reside in accommodation centres. The amendment adds to the meaning of "regulated position" in Section 36 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 and "accommodation centre" created by this Bill.
	The noble Lord, Lord Joffe—I am disappointed that he is not in his place—raised in his earlier amendment the much wider question of child welfare. I focus on the much narrower and, I hope, resolvable issue of accommodation centres. The Refugee Children's Consortium, for whose briefing last week I am grateful, made it clear that it is important that such centres, whether or not they have a statutory duty to provide a child protection policy, should have designated staff to deal with child protection issues and that children must not be at risk.
	My concern is that the Bill as drafted could place children at risk because sex offenders would not be covered by the regulations contained in the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 if they sought work in a voluntary or employed capacity in an accommodation centre. My amendment is therefore very tightly drawn to solve a single problem. It fairly and squarely ensures that sex offenders could not be engaged in employment or voluntary work in accommodation centres where, I believe, they would put children at risk. I hope that the Minister will feel able to accept this amendment or that he can draw to my attention other legislation which ensures that such people would be prevented from accepting such positions in accommodation centres. I beg to move.

Lord Dholakia: The amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, which we support, has some substance. I therefore hope that the Minister will give it further serious consideration.

Lord Hylton: In view of the scandals that have plagued a number of children's homes in a variety of English and Welsh counties, it is very important to prevent, by whatever means possible, similar occurrences in accommodation centres. Should they happen, the whole concept of accommodation centres would be brought into grave disrepute.

Lord Filkin: I thank the noble Baroness for tabling this amendment, which deals with the important issues to which the noble Lords, Lord Dholakia and Lord Hylton, have referred.
	We agree that the safeguarding of children in accommodation centres is of paramount importance. In accommodation centres, they will be with their families. Therefore, the situation is not identical to that in other establishments, such as children's homes or local authority secure accommodation, which are for the exclusive use of children not accompanied by their families. Nevertheless, concern for their protection still prevails. That does not remove the need to ensure that people working in accommodation centres are properly vetted and suitable to be working there.
	The existing statutory framework will apply, including the child welfare provisions in the Children Act 1989. It is also the case that those disqualified from working with children are already prohibited from employment in those positions that meet the definition of "regulated position" within the scope of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000.
	The Criminal Justice and Court Services Act uses the concept of regulated positions and provides that it is a criminal offence for an individual who is disqualified from working with children to apply for, offer to do, accept or undertake any work in a regulated position. It is also an offence for an employer knowingly to offer work to or employ such a disqualified person. A regulated position is so defined that it can relate both to type of establishment and type of work. Thus, for certain types of listed establishments—children's homes, children's hospitals and the like—all employees are considered to be in a regulated position. Noble Lords opposite seek to add accommodation centres to that list.
	However, in addition, a person is considered to be in a regulated position if he undertakes work of a type listed in Section 36 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act. Therefore, accommodation centre staff would be in a regulated position if their normal duties involved caring for, training, supervising or being in sole charge of children. Thus, accommodation centre teachers, creche workers and the like will be caught by the legislation. We need to consider more fully the position of ancillary staff.
	We shall ensure that any contract with an accommodation centre provider enables the Home Office to approve staff before they start work at the centre. We shall also require the contractor to undertake the highest possible level of criminal records check for each member of staff. Our initial view is that those contractual requirements, together with the existing statutory protection, are sufficient. However, in the light of this amendment, we shall consider whether there is merit in providing some additional statutory protection.
	We should like time to consider in more detail the legal position and the extent to which accommodation centres are already covered or not. We should therefore be grateful for an opportunity to reflect on this amendment. Should we conclude that it is necessary, we shall look forward to tabling a suitable amendment at Report stage.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am half grateful for the Minister's response. My amendment is certainly intended to raise a serious issue. I am grateful for the Minister's explanation of the differences in the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act between the definition of categories of places of employment and listing work of a type. My concern is that volunteers involved in the activities of an accommodation centre, or volunteer members of a visiting advisory group who are not doing remunerative work, may not be caught by the definition of "work of a type". However, I am grateful for the Minister's concession that, having taken the initial view that the Government always regard themselves as right about such matters and do not want anyone to touch their beautiful baby Bill, on this occasion they consider that if they pay attention to my amendment, the baby could grow a little healthier.
	The Minister said that he looks forward to returning to the matter on Report. I should say that he will definitely look forward to it because, of course, I shall have an opportunity to consider what he has said and will naturally table an amendment in anticipation of the noble Lord tabling his own. At this stage, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 26 [Facilities]:

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: moved Amendment No. 116:
	Page 13, line 6, leave out "may" and insert "shall"

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: Clause 26 sets out a list of the facilities and services that can be made available at accommodation centres. Our debates over the past few days have strayed very much into the nature of those services. As presently drafted, the clause simply states that the Secretary of State "may" provide those facilities. As the Immigration Advisory Service has pointed out to me, the Secretary of State should not have a discretion to make arrangements for food and other essential items and services for people who are forced to take up residence in accommodation centres. We believe that there should be a duty on the Secretary of State to provide those services.
	People who take up residence in accommodation centres will often have arrived there following long and hazardous journeys. As we have heard over the past two days, they face stays of up to six months or perhaps longer. The services provided by the accommodation centres will be their lifelines and should give them the fairest opportunity properly to present their cases to be allowed to remain here. The services listed in Clause 26 should not be regarded, either in whole or in part, as pick-and-mix options.
	As currently worded, the clause would allow the Government to choose to provide perhaps only one or some of all the services listed in Clause 26. That would not be good enough. If the Government are determined to keep the word "may", will the Minister tell the Committee which services the Government "may" at some stage decide not to provide? Will they decline to provide food, money, education and training, health, religious observance? Perhaps the Minister will say which of those facilities the Government may in the future decide are unnecessary? I beg to move.

Earl Russell: Noble Lords on this side of the Committee agree with the amendment and are happy to support it. I alluded a short time ago to the extremeley wide flexibility that the wording of regulations allows the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State "may" simply means that he might do this, he might do that, or, indeed, he might do something else. It is not really the imposition of an obligation. In fact, I once described it as an approach that is flexible to the point of contortionism.
	The Government talk a great deal about rights and responsibilities, but responsibilities rest on government and well as on others. Those responsibilities involve their admitting occasionally that they actually place a duty on the Secretary of State. To say that the Secretary of State "may" provide food and other essential items is simply not good enough. We support the amendment.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I am not sure that these requirements are covered by regulations under subsection (1). It seems to me that regulations come under subsection (2) of the clause. I believe that my noble friend's amendment has one flaw. I would not have thought that the Secretary of State could be forced to provide anything that he thinks is necessary because of exceptional circumstances. I am not sure, but that seems to me to be a slight flaw. However, the gist of the amendment is extremely important. If the Minister does not like it, I hope that we shall ensure that it happens at some point.

Lord Filkin: The Government understand the objectives advanced for the amendment but believe the proposition placing a duty on us to provide all the facilities listed in Clause 26 to residents of accommodation centres to be flawed. As drafted, the wording of Clause 26(1) reflects the equivalent wording in Sections 95 and 96 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. In principle, it would be illogical to have a duty to provide particular types of support to residents of accommodation centres, but not in respect of Section 96, which sets out what may be provided by way of asylum support under the 1999 Act.
	We are committed to supporting destitute asylum seekers. We are also committed to providing an appropriate range of services to residents of accommodation centres. However, as we discussed yesterday, we are trialling the centres and we do not know what the future will bring. We do not want to tie our hands with a specific duty rather than a more flexible power.
	A genuine trial means that we should not have a fixed concept about what might work. One has to start with a clear hypothesis about what one believes would work while being guided by both evidence and experience. We have already said that we are prepared to consider a different configuration of accommodation centres in response to concerns raised about 750 beds. A smaller centre might impact on the types of service that it is practical or necessary for the Home Office to provide. For example, with a smaller centre it may become less likely that there is need to provide transport to and from the centre because residents may be more easily assimilated on local public transport. It is prudent to be prepared for all eventualities. We would not want a provision on the face of the Bill placing an obligation on the Home Office to arrange for the provision of something that it was not sensible for us to provide.
	Further, irrespective of the trial, some of the facilities listed in Clause 26 may not be necessary for the Secretary of State to provide in all circumstances. It is arguable whether it would always be necessary for the Home Office to provide religious facilities to all asylum seekers in every accommodation centre. If, for example, there is a convenient local church, or mosque, say, it might be sensible to make use of that rather than go to the expense of providing dedicated on-site facilities for those particular denominations. However, as I indicated yesterday—I hope, clearly—we will provide on-site facilities in the trial centres.
	The use of the word "may" does not mean that we have any intention of ducking out of our responsibilities towards destitute asylum seekers. As a matter of policy, we will provide the following facilities in the trial centres: basic living needs; education for children on site; primary healthcare; purposeful activities for adults, including English language training; facilities for religious observance; interpretation facilities; assistance with travel to appeal hearings and asylum interviews, in the event that these do not take place on site, and the initial journey to the centre; and access to legal advice.
	In the light of the assurances that I have given about what will happen in the trial centres and the argumentation for why we need to keep an open mind about how best to support asylum seekers, I hope that the noble Baroness will agree to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Lucas: Is not the solution to the problem simply to take my noble friend's amendment and perhaps add some wording to it so that, for example, it would read:
	"The Secretary of State shall arrange for such facilities as he considers reasonable to be provided"?
	That would have the effect of putting a duty on the Secretary of State to provide such facilities if it was reasonable for them to be provided. There may be another more appropriate set of words, but, at present, the Secretary of State can fail to provide the listed facilities in the clause and there is no comeback against him. However, if, as I suggest, the word "shall" was included, alongside a duty, there would be a comeback against the Secretary of State if he was manifestly unreasonable in not making such provision. That would be a better state of affairs.

Lord Avebury: When outlining the list of facilities to be provided in the four pilot centres, the Minister made no mention of means of communication with the applicants' legal advisers. Does the noble Lord recall that some difficulties arose in Yarl's Wood because faxes that went to and fro between the residents in the centre and their legal advisers were occasionally passed through the Immigration Service and were thereby delayed for periods of up to 36 hours? Can the Minister confirm that proper and sufficient facilities will be provided at these centres to enable residents to communicate with their legal advisers by fax, telephone, or e-mail, so that they will not have to wait hours in a queue in order to use them?

Lord Clinton-Davis: Although I support the views expressed by the noble Lord, is he not anticipating a later debate?

Lord Filkin: I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. I am certain that such access will be in place. Indeed, in common sense and practicality, it needs to be in place to enable people to communicate with their advisers.
	I should like to reflect upon the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, although I wonder whether it actually takes us back to the point at which we started. However, the Government are not prepared to move from what I said in my initial response to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. There is always a duty on the Secretary of State to act reasonably. Therefore, as Members of the Committee know that it is already clearly implied, it is not essential to put such a provision in the Bill.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I cannot help but say that I am disappointed by the noble Lord's response. Although these centres are being set up as trials, what goes to the heart of the issue is the fact that such centres are the only place in which 3,000 people will live every six months. It is important for us to get this right from the first instance. My noble friend Lord Lucas was trying to provide some way out of the impasse and helpfully suggested the idea of some reasonableness as a test. Unfortunately, as the Minister observed, that brings us back to where we started. We return to the subjective test of the Secretary of State. From what the Government have said so far, I do not see enough evidence to suggest that I should trust that test.
	The good will of the Minister is beyond reproach, but I must take into account what we have been told throughout the previous three days of debate. Despite the fact that the Bill has passed through the other place, we have not been promised any sight of the regulations, or any information about what will really happen in these accommodation centres, before we reach the Report stage.
	Moreover, notwithstanding the Minister's assurances—and however well-meaning he may be—I am reminded that behind any government Minister there looms the brooding presence of the Treasury. I should not rely on any civil servants in the Treasury, any more than I would on the Ministers in that department. But I wonder at the back of my mind what would happen if, during a future spending round, the Chancellor of the Exchequer decided that the money given to service supply at accommodation centres should not be increased, or even that it should be reduced. What would a future Home Secretary have to do to decide which of the services should be pruned? Might he decide that some services are not appropriate? Might he decide that it is all right if a church is available within one or 10 miles, whereas a disabled person might need on-site services?
	I do not intend to draw out the argument, but I am deeply disappointed. There are times when it is important to provide a clear picture of what shall be provided for those whose lives will be in these centres. I feel that, on this occasion, I must test the opinion of the Committee.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 116) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 81; Not-Contents, 94.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that the House be now resumed. In moving the Motion, perhaps I may suggest that the Committee stage be resumed not before 8.21 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.

Court of Appeal (Appeals from Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission) Rules 2002

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: rose to move, That the draft rules laid before the House on 14th March be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am grateful for this opportunity to debate as a package these three sets of rules as shown on the Order Paper—the Pathogens Access Appeal Commission (Procedure) Rules 2002, the Court of Appeal (Appeals from the Pathogens Access Appeal Commission) Rules 2002 and the Court of Appeal (Appeals from Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission) Rules 2002. These rules have each been debated and approved in the other place.
	There is no statutory requirement to consult on any of these rules, but we did consult members of the judiciary on the two sets of Court of Appeal rules, and a copy of the Court of Appeal (Appeals from Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission) Rules was sent to members of the Civil Procedure Rules Committee. All three sets of rules derive from recent terrorism legislation.
	The Terrorism Act 2000 was introduced following a review of terrorism legislation and put in place many of the powers needed to protect UK citizens. Following the events of September 11th, the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 expanded those powers to ensure that robust and rigorous systems are in place to take account of the changed threat. One of the new measures in the 2001 Act is to provide for better security in dealing with pathogens and toxins. The Secretary of State may issue directions to an occupier to require that any person be denied access to dangerous substances where this is in the interests of national security or public safety. This provides for the establishment of a Pathogens Access Appeal Commission to hear appeals by individuals—such as students, doctors or researchers—against the Secretary of State's decision to deny them access to dangerous substances. The Act provides for the practice and procedures to be followed on appeals to the commission.
	The commission will need to consider high classification intelligence material and ensure that information is not disclosed which is contrary to the interests of national security or the detection and prevention of crime, or in any other circumstances where disclosure is contrary to the public interest. Where the commission considers it necessary, appeals may be heard in the absence of the appellant. This will be mainly where the Secretary of State has objected to disclosure of certain material to the appellant. In these cases, the Attorney-General will appoint a special advocate to represent the interests of the appellant. I assure noble Lords that the rights of the appellant will be protected, without compromising any sensitive information that might form part of the Secretary of State's opposition to the appeal.
	The 2001 Act provides for further appeal from a decision of the commission heard in England and Wales to the Court of Appeal on a question of law with the permission of the commission or the Court of Appeal.
	Unless noble Lords wish me to expand further, I commend the draft procedure rules and both sets of Court of Appeal rules to the House. I confirm that it is our view that they are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
	Moved, That the draft rules laid before the House on 14th March be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, the principle behind these rules—the special advocate principle—was debated extensively both during the passage of the Terrorism Act 2000 and the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. It is one which we on these Benches accepted. We did so with some reluctance but, recognising the very special circumstances attaching to terrorism, we ultimately accepted it. Therefore, I certainly have no intention whatever of challenging the principles behind it.
	I wish to make two points of which I have given notice to the Minister. I hope that she will be able to respond to them. The first point that I wish to raise applies to all three sets of rules; namely, that the commission in one case, or the Court of Appeal in the other two cases, must,
	"secure that information is not disclosed contrary to the interests of national security, the detection and prevention of crime, or in any other circumstances where disclosure is contrary to the public interest".
	That is a formulation based on the public interest in non-disclosure.
	However, an appellant has a right to a fair hearing, including in principle the disclosure of evidence which is intended to be used against him. There is a general public interest above and beyond that of the appellant personally that trials should be fair. We believe that the right to disclosure of evidence can be overridden only in exceptional cases. I should like an assurance that, in deciding whether or not to disclose information, the commission or the court will be required to take into account the personal interests of the appellant and the general interests of the public in the disclosure of evidence which is material to the trial and that any order to withhold information will be made only where that is a proportionate and necessary response to the damage that would be caused by the disclosure of it.
	My second point applies only to the Pathogens Access Appeal Commission (Procedure) Rules 2002. It arises under the special advocate regulation in Rule 8. Rule 8(1) states:
	"At any time prior to issuing a reply under rule 9(1), the Secretary of State shall inform the relevant law officer"—
	which, in the context of England and Wales, is the Attorney-General—
	"of the proceedings before the Commission, with a view to the law officer, if he thinks fit to do so, appointing a special advocate to represent the interests of the appellant in the proceedings".
	Rule 8(2) states:
	"Paragraph (1) applies unless—
	(a) the Secretary of State does not intend to oppose the appeal, or
	(b) he does not intend to object to the disclosure of material to the appellant".
	Under Rule 8(1) the Attorney-General is not required to appoint a special advocate. He does so only if he thinks fit to do so. Therefore, he clearly has a discretion. But the special advocate will play an essential role in protecting the rights of the appellant who is excluded from being present at his appeal. Therefore, I should like to ask in what circumstances, other than those already specified in paragraph (2) of Rule 8, is it envisaged that the Attorney-General might not appoint a special advocate? In such a case will the appellant be notified that the Attorney-General has decided either to appoint, or not to appoint, a special advocate? Will the appellant have a right to judicial review of a decision of the Attorney-General not to appoint a special advocate? I await with interest the noble Baroness's reply.

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I have only one matter to add to what the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has said. These provisions—on balance I think understandably—involve, particularly in one case, a substantial diminution of individual rights. Is the Minister able to give to your Lordships' House tonight an undertaking that the operation of the special advocate procedure will be kept under careful review; and that there will be some form of accountability over a period of time for the procedure to your Lordships' House and another place?

Lord Brennan: My Lords, I want to raise two matters with the Minister. First, I commend the Government on consulting with the judiciary about the rules. Secondly, I invite comment on two consequences, by way of example, from Rule 4 in the Court of Appeal (Appeals from Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission) Rules. First, I invite the Minister to be careful before proposing in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, a suggested basis for judicial decision-making about how to interpret Rule 4. I should have thought that it is for the court to determine what it thinks is in the public interest, having regard to the evidence that it has heard, and not for the Government to dictate to the judiciary the way in which it should approach matters. I remind the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that there may be Ministers who would give the judiciary different advice from that which he mentioned.
	Secondly and much more importantly, I raise a matter that needs clarification. In an appeal to the Court of Appeal under the rules or under similar rules that might emerge from the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act, the court, in deciding a point of law, has to listen to evidence of a kind mentioned in Rule 4 on the appeal if it excludes the appellant and his representatives. Do those rules envisage that a special advocate will have a right of audience in the Court of Appeal to address those matters before the court makes its decision?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can answer my noble friend's final question briefly simply by saying, "yes".
	I bear in mind the caution given to me by my noble friend Lord Brennan on the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. The noble Lord was right. The Secretary of State will not take such decisions lightly and will consider all relevant issues. However, it will ultimately be for the commission or the court to decide whether a party should be excluded from a hearing or part of a hearing where such material is under consideration. That is not in the sole discretion of the Secretary of State, although he could choose not to rely on evidence that would otherwise need to be disclosed.
	The Secretary of State is unlikely to give reasons for his decision when he issues directions requiring denial of access. However, if the excluded person appeals, any evidence in the public domain will be heard in the proceedings before the commission or the court, at which the appellant or his representative can be present. If the commission or the court determined that it would be against the public interest for the evidence to be made public, the evidence on which the Secretary of State based his decision would be heard without the appellant. However, the special advocate would be present and able to voice his view.
	In respect of the second question of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, it is envisaged that the Attorney-General will in practice appoint a special advocate where a party or his legal representative are to be excluded from the hearing. The Attorney-General will seek representations from the appellant or his legal representative before official nomination of the special advocate. On issues of conflict of interest that may arise, we are satisfied that the decision of the Attorney-General is ECHR compliant and is not subject to judicial review. A special advocate is appointed by the Attorney-General but not instructed by him. I hope that that assists the noble Lord.
	On the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, there is a provision for a review of the rules. The noble Lord will remember that Section 122(4) of the 2001 Act contains a provision for that Act to be reviewed by a commission after two years. It states:
	"The committee shall complete the review and send a report to the Secretary of State not later than the end of two years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed".
	Although the rules are not specifically caught, noble Lords will know that there will be an opportunity to examine the operation of the Act. I hope that with that assurance the noble Lord will be content.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Court of Appeal (Appeals from Pathogens Access Appeal Commission) Rules 2002

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: rose to move, That the draft rules laid before the House on 12th June be approved [32nd Report from the Joint Committee].
	Moved, That the draft rules laid before the House on 12th June be approved [32nd Report from the Joint Committee]—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
	On Question, Motion agreed to.

Pathogens Access Appeal Commission (Procedure) Rules 2002

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: rose to move, That the draft rules laid before the House on 12th June be approved [32nd Report from the Joint Committee].
	Moved, That the draft rules laid before the House on 12th June be approved [32nd Report from the Joint Committee]—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
	On Question, Motion agreed to.

Specialized Agencies of the United Nations (Immunities and Privileges) (Amendment) Order 2002

Baroness Amos: rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th June be approved [32nd Report from the Joint Committee].

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I shall speak also to the draft United Nations and International Court of Justice (Immunities and Privileges) (Amendment) Order 2002.
	These two orders were laid before the House on 12th June 2002, together with Explanatory Memoranda now required for all affirmative statutory instruments. They are similar and so, for the convenience of the House, I shall discuss them together. They provide for refunds of insurance premium tax (IPT) and air passenger duty (APD) to the United Nations and International Labour Organisation paid in the exercise of their official activities.
	Thirty five international organisations already have relief from IPT and APD under existing legislation. Those are international organisations of which the United Kingdom is a member and which have headquarters or offices based in the United Kingdom and those others, although not based here, to which we are legally obliged to give relief from such taxes and duties. The United Nations and ILO will bring the total to 37. Unlike the majority of the other international organisations, there were legal complexities in this instance which had first to be resolved.
	Refunds of IPT and APD are given to meet our international obligations. It is established international practice that a state should not tax other states through the intermediary of an international organisation and that the host state should not derive undue fiscal advantage from the presence on its soil of an international organisation.
	IPT is levied on buildings, on household contents and on vehicle insurance policies. Some areas of insurance, such as life, pensions and permanent health insurance, are exempt. Basic liability to pay and account for the tax rests with the insurance company.
	APD applies to all passengers departing from UK airports, irrespective of when and where the ticket was acquired. APD is collected by the carrier or agent issuing the ticket and charged to the customer at the time of purchase. Rates vary depending on whether the destination is within or beyond the European economic area and the class of travel. Both IPT and APD were introduced in 1994.
	The orders confer only those privileges and immunities that we are internationally obliged to confer and will allow us to treat the United Nations and ILO on the same basis as 35 similar organisations. I am satisfied that the orders are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. I beg to move.
	Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th June be approved [32nd Report from the Joint Committee]—(Baroness Amos.)

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, we on this side have no dispute with the purpose and aim of these two orders. But perhaps I may clarify one or two relatively minor aspects. I understand that the orders extend relief to the International Labour Organisation and to the International Court of Justice, thereby bringing from 35 to 37 the number of international organisations to which we extend these reliefs. As the noble Baroness said, they give freedom from paying insurance premium tax and air passenger duty.
	I believe that the general principle, which is one of complete common sense as well as being established, is that states do not go around seeking to benefit fiscally from international organisations which happen to be based on their soil. The principle is a large one, but I believe—the noble Baroness will correct me if I am wrong—that the revenue implications of this are extremely small.
	I believe that the figures of £3,000 for immunities for ILO officials and £2,000 for International Court of Justice officials have been mentioned in another place. Perhaps I may ask whether that is right and whether that money is now to be returned from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to those organisations, having been removed from them previously, or whether it relates to future revenues foregone. Secondly, do we know approximately how many personnel are covered by the orders? Does the total also include expert consultants who may be employed by those two organisations or by their representative offices in the UK?
	Those are small queries. If the noble Baroness does not have the answers to hand immediately, I shall fully understand that, and perhaps she will write to me later. Those are the only queries that I have.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, these orders seem to be very much in line with standard practice, and we have no objection to them.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I shall try to respond to the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Howell. IPT was introduced from 1st October 1994 and APD from 1st November 1994. The tax and duty have already been collected and therefore should be refunded. The money has been allocated by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for that purpose.
	With regard to the amounts involved, we estimate that the figures which the noble Lord quoted are correct. The amount will be in the region of £3,000 per annum for the United Nations and £2,000 for the ILO. I am unable to answer the noble Lord's question concerning the number of personnel covered or whether consultants would be included. I shall be happy to write to him on that point.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, it is possible that I am confused, but the orders refer to the "United Nations" as a type of generic label. They also refer to the International Labour Organisation and the International Court of Justice, which I am not sure the noble Baroness mentioned. Are we dealing with three organisations here or simply two?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, one order with which we are dealing is the draft United Nations and International Court of Justice order. The other deals with the specialised agencies of the United Nations. I commend the order to the House.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

United Nations and International Court of Justice (Immunities and Privileges) (Amendment) Order 2002

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I beg to move.
	Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th June be approved [32nd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Amos.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

International Maritime Organisation (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2002

Baroness Amos: rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 23rd May be approved [31st Report from the Joint Committee].

Baroness Amos: My Lords, this order was laid before the House on 23rd May 2002, together with an explanatory memorandum now required for all affirmative statutory instruments. It confers full diplomatic privileges and immunities on the permanent representatives, or acting permanent representatives, of the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) member states and on the holders of five posts at divisional director level. Members of their families forming part of their households will enjoy the same privileges and immunities.
	The draft order is the culmination of a lengthy dialogue with the IMO, which is the only specialised agency of the United Nations based in this country. It brings the United Kingdom into step with accepted practice for UN specialised agencies based elsewhere in the world and will allow senior representatives and officials at the IMO to enjoy the same status as they would enjoy if attached to UN specialised agencies in, for example, Paris, Geneva, Vienna or Rome.
	The IMO is an important international body that plays an invaluable role in promoting the safety of life at sea and preventing pollution from ships. All major shipping nations are members of the IMO, and we are very pleased and honoured to have the IMO headquarters based in London. We should accord the senior representatives and officials of the IMO the status that is recognised internationally as being appropriate for them to carry out their duties effectively.
	The legal basis for the order and the legislative context and existing legal position are set out in the explanatory memorandum laid before the House. The order will enable the Government to give effect to the agreement contained in an Exchange of Notes with the IMO (command paper 5473) and to accept the revised Annex XII to the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies of the United Nations, which was approved by the IMO Assembly on 22nd November 2001 (command paper 5474).
	The order also consolidates and updates five previous orders made under the International Organisations Act 1968. Those orders are revoked and are listed in the schedule to the present order. I am satisfied that the order is compatible with the rights contained in the European Convention on Human Rights. I beg to move.
	Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 23rd May be approved [31st Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Amos.)

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. As before, in principle we have no dispute with the perfectly sensible and straightforward proposal in the order. It does, indeed, confirm full diplomatic privileges and immunities on the personnel of the International Maritime Organisation.
	The organisation is extremely valuable and we applaud the dedicated work that it does and the vast responsibilities that it carries in relation to maritime affairs and, in particular, to aspects of pollution and safety on the high seas. Therefore, we have no wish to stand in the way of this proposal.
	Again, perhaps I may ask two small questions. Am I right in saying that the order covers only an additional seven officers of the International Maritime Organisation and that all the other staff of the organisation here in London already have immunity from other sources? If that is so, this is a very modest extension. Is seven the right number? Again, is there any figure for the loss of revenue involved? I should be grateful for answers to those questions, if not now, then in due course; otherwise, we have no difficulty with the order.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, we, too, are obviously very happy that the International Maritime Organisation is based in London. We believe that the order is entirely appropriate and are happy to support it.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their comments. I shall deal with the specific questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Howell. The noble Lord is absolutely right. An extra seven people are involved. Five are in the IMO Secretariat at divisional director level and two are permanent representatives, or acting permanent representatives, who do not already enjoy such status from accreditation to their London diplomatic missions.
	Three countries are involved: Russia, Liberia and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, which maintain independent missions to the IMO. The Liberia permanent representative is cross-accredited to the Liberia Embassy. Therefore, we are talking of Russia and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea plus the five divisional directors.
	I do not have the answer to the noble Lord's second question but I shall be happy to write to him. I commend the order to the House.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Offshore Installations (Emergency Pollution Control) Regulations 2002

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 12th June be approved [32nd Report from the Joint Committee].

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the regulations before the House today implement the recommendations of the review by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, of salvage and intervention and their command and control in so far as they relate to the UK oil and gas industry. The report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, which followed the grounding and subsequent salvage of the "Sea Empress" in 1996, was presented to Parliament in March 1999. The report was thorough and comprehensive. It made 26 recommendations, five of which related to offshore oil and gas installations, and which these regulations cover. Those of the remaining recommendations which have not yet been implemented and which require legislative change will be covered in a Bill to be introduced by the Department of Transport.
	Specifically, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, recommended that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who is responsible for the regulatory control of offshore installations, should be given powers to intervene where there is significant pollution or the risk of it. Furthermore, those powers should be delegated to the nominated representative of the Secretary of State, or SOSREP for short. The noble and learned Lord also recommended that there should be provisions for the payment of compensation in certain circumstances. The powers for offshore installations would be similar to those which exist for shipping under the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 and which are exercised by the Secretary of State for Transport.
	The regulations before the House today will give the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry the necessary intervention powers, which will be exercised by the SOSREP. They also make appropriate provision for the payment of compensation. For reasons of achieving clarity and clear communication in what could be difficult circumstances, the SOSREP for offshore installations will be the same person who exercises the power in relation to shipping. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will therefore appoint, on the day the regulations come in to force, Mr Robin Middleton as her representative. Mr Middleton is currently the SOSREP for the Department of Transport, and is based in the offices of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency in Southampton. He has an extensive background in salvage, enforcement, emergency planning and response.
	A full consultation process was undertaken and a regulatory impact assessment prepared. Industry raised concerns over the cost of implementation, but those will not be large and are estimated at £500,000 for the industry as a whole, which equates to an average cost of less than £16,000 per operator.
	Greater concern was expressed over the potential conflict between the health and safety of personnel and the protection of the environment. I make clear that health and safety will always be paramount, and industry has been assured of that. The nature of incident response is such that priority is always given to human safety over pollution control. The DTI has had detailed discussions with the Health and Safety Executive on that issue and a small amendment to the regulations was made to make the position clear. Another concern has been over the claiming of compensation. Should such a claim be made, it will be a matter for the courts to decide in accordance with the tests set out in the regulations. While the industry has asked for firm guidance, it is not possible to prejudge such an event.
	I take into account the concerns of industry. However, I believe it will ultimately benefit from this legislation. The first priority after health and safety is to safeguard the public interest in a pollution, or potential pollution, situation by bringing to bear the resources of government. The DTI has kept the industry fully informed and involved in the progress of the regulations through individual discussions, by holding a national exercise and by a workshop with the industry and other government departments.
	In presenting his thorough report, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, who I am glad to see in his place, recognised the excellent record of the offshore industry in limiting the size and number of spills, and that the likelihood of a major incident was low. But he also recognised the need to reflect the balance of the public and national interest against commercial pressures. I do not believe that the regulations will be a burden on the offshore industry but rather, in the event they are ever activated, will facilitate the setting up of a partnership for dealing with a major oil spill, which will reduce or prevent pollution. I beg to move.
	Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 12th June be approved [32nd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)

Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, I welcome wholeheartedly the regulations, which are essential. It is right and equally essential that the same SOSREP—I apologise for the word; we tried all kinds of other words which conveyed wrong messages—on behalf of the Secretary of State, the DTI and the Department of Transport should be the same person. One has only to visualise a collision between a ship and a platform to realise that chaos would ensue if different people were in charge from different angles. Therefore, I welcome the provision.
	I should like some help from the Minister on his remark that health and safety will be involved. I do not think he means that the Health and Safety Executive will be involved, at any rate in the activities of the SOSREP. The SOSREP—I know him well—is well aware of the need to conduct operations in the safest possible way without any threat to health in so far as it can be done. He is also aware—I have seen this in practical terms when he has been working for the Department of Transport—of the need to put safety and life before all else. However, I should not want the remarks of the Minister to be construed as meaning that the Health and Safety Executive can come along to the SOSREP in the middle of an operation and say, "You cannot do that", or "We do not want you to do that". It has nothing to do with that organisation. The essence of the SOSREP system is that he has complete and utter control. The only option open to either Secretary of State is to sack him or back him.

Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, the draft statutory instruments are non-controversial. They are widely seen as sensible by the industry. Likewise, we see them as sensible. However, I have two questions for the Minister. I refer first to Regulation 3(4), on page 2. In paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) reference is made respectively to "she", "she" and "her". Has Parliament adopted the convention that "she" will act also for "he" when "she" or "her" becomes "he"? That is a minor point, but I should be grateful for an answer. Secondly, Article 4(4) refers to the Admiralty jurisdiction. Will the Admiralty Court be able to claim funding to carry out that additional duty?

Lord Kirkhill: My Lords, I, too, welcome the regulations and give them every support. Unfairly, I take the opportunity to observe, as someone who lives in north-east Scotland, that the continuing day-to-day pollution emanating from the various oil rigs in our northern waters on to our onshore areas is a constant disgrace.

Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, I rise from these Benches to support these important regulations.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am particularly grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, for his observations and support and to all noble Lords who have spoken. The noble and learned Lord is right in saying that there is no possibility of the Health and Safety Executive entering an incident such as an oil spill or an accident to an offshore installation and countermanding the authority of the SOSREP.
	The regulations make the same provision for offshore installations as existing powers for ships under Sections 137 to 140 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. Regulation 3(6) is modelled on Section 137 of that Act. To ensure consistency between the two pieces of legislation, the SOSREP will carry out that duty. He will always ensure that health and safety take priority. In practical terms, if there is an accident to an offshore rig and dangerous activities such as capping off the flow have to be undertaken, the workers on the rig will be taken off first. Only those people who need to be there to undertake the capping will be present while it takes place. The SOSREP will take advice on health and safety issues from specialist advisers because he will not necessarily have the skills in that area.
	The noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, asked me two questions. The first related to references to "he" and "she". Under the Interpretation Act, words denoting masculine can mean feminine and vice versa. We use "she" to refer to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry at the present time because it is a she—Patricia Hewitt. However, if a man were to take over the post regulations under his jurisdiction would refer to "he". That is the only reason for it. SOSREP happens to be a he at the present time. If it were a she it would say so.
	The noble Lord asked whether there is funding for Admiralty jurisdiction under Regulation 4(4). I think that I can give him the assurance that there will be sufficient funding. If I am wrong about that I shall write to him.
	I understand and sympathise with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill. That is not relevant to the content of the regulations. The noble Lord agrees.
	I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, for his support.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 (Schedule 4) (Amendment) Order 2002

Lord Davies of Oldham: rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th June be approved [32nd Report from the Joint Committee].

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am satisfied that this draft order is compatible with convention rights. The purpose of the order is to remove the restrictions on the form of refreshments, other than alcohol, which may be sold in licensed betting offices in Great Britain.
	Currently, betting offices are only allowed to sell their customers pre-packaged food. In the vast majority of cases that means packets of crisps and chocolate bars. There is no good reason to retain this restriction. Indeed, on nutritional grounds there may be good reasons to abolish it.
	If bookmakers have the facilities to provide a wider, better range of food products then surely they should be allowed to do so.
	Following the report produced last year by Sir Alan Budd and his team in the independent Gambling Review Body, the Government published their response earlier this year in a paper called, A safe bet for success. It outlined the strategy for updating the regulation of gambling and for a range of measures that would help the industry thrive in the 21st century. Most of those measures require further consideration of detailed points, but they will form the basis of a new wide-ranging gambling Bill.
	However, where we can help the industry in the meantime with some interim changes, such as those contained in this order, it is right that we should do so. It does not represent any fundamental change in policy and will serve to implement a specific recommendation contained in the Gambling Review Body's report. It is a timely sensible extension of what is already permitted and, as such, it should be welcomed. I beg to move.
	Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th June be approved [32nd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Davies of Oldham.)

Lord Luke: My Lords, the Minister will be pleased to hear that there is absolutely no objection from these Benches to the measure. I do not have any questions either.

Viscount Falkland: My Lords, the last time I spoke about betting offices in this House was nine years ago regarding the Licensed Betting Offices (Amendment) regulations. On that day I had grave reservations about those regulations. I am happy to tell the noble Lord that I have no such reservations today.
	On that occasion we discussed extending the opening hours for betting shops on Saturday evenings to 10 o'clock. My remarks were mainly about the employment of women and what I thought were the unsatisfactory preparations which bookmakers had made.
	I made some fairly trenchant remarks on that occasion. They were provoked, if I may say so without speaking ill of the dead, by the late Lord Wyatt of Weeford. In extolling betting shops he described them in a manner which I thought presented them as places full of daffodils and families. Indeed, he said:
	"Betting is a high, moral occupation".—[Official Report, 22/2/93; col. 34.]
	That so incensed me that I am afraid I went slightly over the top and talked about many betting shops having a seedy and dispiriting atmosphere and being full of people chasing their losses and sometimes people of criminal intent.
	I was taken to task for that by the only daily publication which—happily—is not in your Lordships' House. It describes itself as the newspaper adults read and has "Sport" in its title. Three pages were devoted to reviling my remarks on that occasion. I was referred to not only as a "dotty peer", but as a "pain in the 'orse". Of course a copy of that paper has become a treasured possession of mine. In the past two or three years, however, the Sun—a very respectable newspaper in comparison—has been kind enough to label me "the punters' friend", and my birthday is now regularly reported in the Racing Post. So whatever misdemeanours I committed on that occasion have probably vanished well into the past—at least, I hope so.
	On a serious point, one cannot object to people wanting refreshments in betting shops. I do not want to appear too familiar with betting shops, but I do know something about them and have been in them over the years. At present, when people want refreshment they go round the corner to buy it—and in London they are well served with sandwich bars and cafes of all kinds. That is not a good thing for bookmakers, who rely on a steady turnover. If people leave the betting shop to eat and drink elsewhere, they may miss the next dog race. The great thing that bookmakers want to do is to get people betting all the time.
	However, if people are expecting betting offices to be centres of gastronomic excellence, they can think again. One of the characteristics of betting shops—if I can paint this picture without making them seem too seedy and dispiriting—is that most of the people in them who back horses regularly are chain-smokers. Betting offices are absolutely thick with smoke. I do not think that anyone, apart from the most compulsive punter chasing his losses, would want to enjoy a sandwich in a betting shop. But good luck to the bookmakers if they can produce something tolerable that people want to eat. I have no objection to that. It is the business of bookmakers to get as much turnover as they can—and now, under the excellent new tax structures introduced by the Government, that benefits racing as a whole.
	In summary, I hope that I have not been "a pain in the 'orse" to the House, or to the noble Lord on the Government Front Bench. I repeat: on behalf of these Benches, I welcome the order.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Luke, for his wholehearted support, and to the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, for his slightly more conditional support. I recognise that the noble Viscount has had to learn the error of his ways over an earlier decade. I refer to the stance that he took with regard to betting shops in the 1990s—although it may not be "the error of his ways", because betting shops have improved immeasurably since that time. I imagine that not all are of a universally high standard. We can only quote as we see. My visit to a betting shop tends to be an annual one—on the day of the Grand National when I join the vast majority of my fellow citizens in a wager. I must say that my annual visit is always attended by an extraordinary improvement in the facilities for punters who use the betting shop with somewhat greater regularity. People get a great deal of innocent pleasure out of betting. Why should we not make the experience as comfortable and enjoyable for them as we can?
	The noble Viscount is right to indicate that in some areas of the country—certainly in most parts of London—it may be extremely convenient to nip out for refreshment within easy reach elsewhere. But that may not be the case universally. There are some betting shops where punters do not have easy access to refreshment when they need it. Therefore, it is only right that we recognise that a diet largely restricted to crisps and chocolate can now be extended—with nothing but benefit for those who take advantage of the opportunity. On that basis, I commend the order to the House.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.21 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	[The Sitting was suspended from 8.11 to 8.21 p.m.]

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill

House again in Committee on Clause 26.

Earl Russell: moved Amendment No. 117:
	Page 13, line 7, at end insert—
	"( ) access to competent legal advice;"

Earl Russell: I begin with argument on Amendment No. 119 that touches on a point with which we have not dealt previously. Amendment No. 119 deals with expenses in connection with communications or meetings with a legal adviser. During discussions on the way the system works under the 1999 Act, we have heard constantly of people unable to communicate with their lawyer because they did not have change for the telephone, money for a fax or access to a fax machine or—my noble friend Lord Avebury raised the case just before dinner—because the faxes ended up in the hands of the Immigration Service. I am sure that was an oversight and I hope that it will not occur again.
	Meetings are a nightmare for the client and the legal adviser. If you have been dispersed to, say, Preston and have to get to London it can be very expensive, as many of us know well. In order to have justice done, people need to be able to undertake reasonable expenses in order to meet and communicate with their legal advisers. That is the purpose of Amendment No. 119 and of a later amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. It may be for the convenience of the Committee if we discuss them together as we seek the same aim.
	Amendment No. 117 provides for asylum seekers to have access to competent legal advice. I put forward my arguments on that issue on the first day. I shall not do so again. The Minister knows them perfectly well. In Amendment No. 121A he has responded generously. That amendment states that,
	"the Secretary of State may arrange for the provision of facilities in an accommodation centre for the use of a person in providing legal advice to a resident of the centre".
	That meets the case exactly in all words save one. I thank the Minister warmly for doing so. The Minister will be in no doubt about the one word: it is "may". When the Minister has been so generous, I am sorry to say that that is not good enough. Providing access to competent legal advice has to be a duty on the Secretary of State. Were there to be any failure in that duty, it could turn out to be judicially reviewable. On these Benches, we do not divide in Committee, but I think I can promise the Minister that the word "may" will be the subject of an amendment on Report.

Lord Clinton-Davis: I am largely on the noble Earl's side. However, if "shall" is substituted for "may", the Secretary of State is obliged to enable the applicant to seek legal advice. I do not think that that is right. It is right that he should pause and think again about the issue.

Earl Russell: If someone has to return to a place every night and therefore cannot travel to London to meet a competent lawyer—by "competent" I mean someone competent in asylum law, which is not in all respects the same as immigration law—there must be a duty on the Secretary of State to allow them access to competent legal advice. If you impede them in that duty you deprive them of their legal right. You are preventing a level playing field in litigation and you may even be at risk of legal proceedings yourself. While I respect the noble Lord's point, I cannot bring myself to accept it.
	Whatever we may say about the words "may" and "shall", I am deeply grateful for the remainder of the amendment, in particular for the speed with which the Minister responded to my remarks on the first day. For that I thank him very much indeed. I beg to move.

Lord Clinton-Davis: I wish that the noble Earl had gone a little further. Advice in an accommodation centre is not sufficient. The person may seek advice on a rather abstruse point of law. It is not always practicable for the legal adviser to come to the accommodation centre. I see no reason why, in appropriate circumstances, the asylum seeker should not go to the chambers of the barrister or the office of the solicitor, which may not be coincidental with the accommodation centre. I accept the view of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on the word "may", but I do not think in practice that there should be any permissive nature about the duty of the Secretary of State.
	However, we should address ourselves to the possibility of a bogus point being taken by the asylum seeker. In that event, it is not appropriate for the Secretary of State to provide the asylum seeker with the facilities to seek advice. I hope that at a later stage of the Bill the Minister will respond favourably to the proposal. It is not revolutionary. It is a simple proposition. The Minister should reply affirmatively. In other words, where it is essential for the asylum seeker to be able to visit a competent legal adviser—and I take the point that the legal adviser has to be competent in this area of the law—the Secretary of State should be obliged to enable that asylum seeker to go to the chambers or office of a suitable and competent legal adviser.
	It may be that the advice sought is outside the competence of the person first consulted. In that case, the Secretary of State should also be obliged to provide facilities to enable the asylum seeker to obtain legal advice. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Russell, but my noble friend the Minister has, in Amendment No. 121A, made a good attempt to meet the points that have been raised. However, in my respectful submission, it does not go far enough. I would like to return to the issue at a later stage, but I hope that my noble friend will agree in principle with the point that I have made.

Earl Russell: The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, is, of course, right that there may be points with which the adviser on the spot may not be able to deal. That was the purpose for which I put down Amendment No. 119, which would allow for the provision of expenses for travel to meet the legal adviser.
	Bogus points have been put forward ever since Adam said, "Woman tempted me". The Secretary of State is not the best person to decide whether the point is bogus.

Lord Hylton: The noble Earl, Lord Russell, mentioned my amendment, Amendment No. 139. It is not in this group, and I would like to move it separately. It goes wider than just what happens within accommodation centres.
	Having said that, I warmly welcome Amendment No. 121A. However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, that, although the Government's amendment is a good effort, it does not go nearly far enough. For example, it does not say that the legal advice made available should be independent. That is crucial. Therefore, I would prefer Amendment No. 117, perhaps combined with Amendments Nos. 118 and 119. The question needs further and deeper consideration.
	I was glad to hear the Minister say, during our discussion of Amendment No. 116, that interpretation would be provided. That is a good start. However, unless there is adequate legal advice, as well as interpretation, we will not get the quality of first decisions about which I have gone on at some length at previous stages. Nor will we get the speed of process that all members of the Committee wish to see.

Lord Dubs: I welcome Amendment No. 121A. However, I wish it went it a bit further—in a different direction from that suggested by my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis.
	One of the strengths of the refugee world in Britain is that there are active and effective refugee community organisations that provide support to their members. Sometimes, they provide legal advice, but, more often, they provide broader advice and, above all, support to members of their community. It is well known that that support for newly arrived asylum seekers, which familiarises them with our language and culture, is invaluable in helping them to adjust to being here and to deal with their asylum claim. Unfortunately, Amendment No. 121A simply says, "in providing legal advice". If it said,
	"in providing legal and other advice and support",
	I should be happy. Will my noble friend the Minister consider that for a later stage?

Lord Avebury: Yesterday, the Minister said that a generic model for how facilities at accommodation centres would operate already existed. Presumably, those facilities include premises for the use of the legal advisers who will serve the inhabitants of the centre. Can the Minister give us an idea of the scale of the facilities envisaged?
	We might take Oakington for comparison. I understand that the Refugee Legal Centre and the Immigration Advisory Service have separate office blocks containing rooms used by legal advisors as interview rooms and so on. Space of, roughly, 30,000 square feet is available to each agency in which to serve the residents at Oakington. There will be more people in the accommodation centres, so I take it that, in the generic model that the Minister said we could see, there are two blocks—one for the RLC and one for the IAS. What sort of square footage will they occupy?

Lord Kingsland: We have two difficulties with Amendment No. 121A. The first was eloquently explained by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. The second is connected with the expression "provision of facilities".
	Amendment No. 121A arranges for,
	"the provision of facilities . . . for the use of a person in providing legal advice to a resident of the centre".
	It does not guarantee the provision of the legal advice itself. That is why we believe that our amendment, Amendment No. 118, takes the correct approach. It would ensure that residents of an accommodation centre would have access to on-site legal advice for the purposes of their asylum claim, rather than having to travel many miles to meet their legal representatives—as far, perhaps, as a barrister's chambers in London.

Lord Clinton-Davis: What happens if a rather abstruse point of law—beyond the competence of the person at the accommodation centre—arises and it becomes necessary to go to see a barrister in chambers? It may not be practicable for the barrister to come to the accommodation centre.

Lord Kingsland: It may, ultimately, be desirable for the asylum seeker to go to the barrister's chambers, but he is likely to do so only after the advice offered in an initial consultation with his solicitor. So, in order to recognise that he needs expert legal advice, the asylum seeker must have general legal advice first. The Government should guarantee that such general legal advice is available on site. That is the purpose of Amendment No. 118.
	I accept that our amendment does not provide for the further step. It may be necessary on Report to refine the amendment, so that we can approach the problem in two stages. Stage one is the on-site advice, and stage two concerns the legal consequences that flow from that advice.

Lord Clinton-Davis: Does the noble Lord agree with the proposition that the second stage should be included in the Bill? In other words, it may be necessary, in certain circumstances that he has defined, for the asylum seeker to go to the chambers of someone who specialises in this area of the law.

Lord Hylton: It would be helpful if the kind of provisions that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, rightly wants were enlarged to cover not only residents of accommodation centres but asylum seekers in general.

Lord Kingsland: May I suggest that between Committee and Report stages, we might put our heads together and consider the possible elaboration of Amendment No. 118 in the unlikely event that the Minister does not concede both points?
	Perhaps I could elaborate on the approach that we have adopted under Amendment No. 118. We entirely accept and appreciate that the Government did move in the direction suggested by the Opposition in another place. We appreciate the steps that they have taken so far. At col. 171 of the Official Report of the Standing Committee in another place, it was argued that there was no reference to "legal services" in the Bill. It is the Legal Services Commission rather than the Home Office that provides such services, and which is already empowered under existing statutory provisions to provide services to asylum seekers. I understand that that is the main reason why the Government have resisted including the matter in the Bill.
	The noble Lord the Minister is neither nodding nor shaking his head, so I await his response with interest. We believe that it is vital to recognise that the accommodation centres will become a one-stop shop for asylum applications. I welcome Amendment No. 121, which reflects the concerns expressed both here and in another place. In the Standing Committee in another place, the Minister said that legal services would be freely available in accommodation centres as required.
	However, I must press the Minister for an explanation as to why it cannot be specified in the Bill that legal advice should be provided in those centres. That is what the Government have said they intend to happen, so why not make it plain?

Lord Renton: I apologise for not having been present when this group of amendments was first discussed. I have been here for some time now and have heard valuable proposals. I support the proposition that between now and Report stage, the Front Benches and others if they feel like it, should consult to find a suitable method of achieving legal representation in the way in which the various amendments suggest. They all have a different emphasis, which is unfortunate in a way, but it is leading us in the right direction. I think that it would be a good thing if we did not press the issue tonight. It would be valuable if the Minister when replying says that he would be willing to have discussions about the best way of embracing the motives of the various amendments. I very often agree with the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and I agree that there should be access to legal advice. However, to introduce the word "competent" creates a bit of a problem.

Lord Filkin: I shall make no comment on that.
	I shall give the Government's position on these issues, but I am happy to have further discussions without commitment if that would be useful. First, I shall set out why we cannot accept Opposition Amendments Nos. 117 to 119, which deal with legal advice, and why we hope that the Committee will accept Government Amendment No. 121A.
	I understand concerns that asylum seekers in accommodation centres will not be able to have access to free, independent legal advice. People are worried that we will say, "There is advice in that town 20 miles away. It is available to you. Off you go and get it", and that accommodation centre residents will not be able to afford to do that, or will not be able to reach the town and remain within their reporting and residence restrictions. Effectively asylum seekers will be denied legal advice. They are worried that there will be insufficient legal advisers available to provide advice for all centre residents.
	We do not believe that that is so. We are committed to ensuring that all asylum seekers have access to legal advice if they want it at all stages of the asylum process. That applies equally to accommodation centre residents. We will ensure that there are sufficient advisers available for accommodation centre residents to receive that advice.
	The advice will be provided and funded by the Legal Services Commission through on-site provision, local supply or a combination of both. The precise arrangements will depend on the location of each accommodation centre. The Legal Services Commission will enter into specific contracts with quality assured suppliers. That is being planned centrally by the Commission, which has been involved in discussions with the Home Office on this issue over several months.
	The Committee is aware that the Legal Services Commission is already under a duty to facilitate the provision of legal advice and representation by virtue of Section 4 of the Access to Justice Act 1999. Furthermore, the Commission is under a duty, within the resources available and the priorities set by the Lord Chancellor, to ensure that individuals have access to services that effectively meet their needs. Issues involving life or liberty, including asylum, are given top priority for funding in accordance with the Lord Chancellor's direction on priorities issued under Section 6(1) of the Access to Justice Act and are also prioritised under the funding code issued under Section 8 of that Act and approved by Parliament.
	Therefore, there is already an obligation on the Legal Services Commission to provide advice for asylum seekers. To meet concerns that such advice may be available but inaccessible, Government Amendment No. 121A provides a power for the Home Office to provide facilities for accommodation centre residents to receive legal advice. We are taking this power to make clear the Home Office's express intention to facilitate the provision of legal advice at accommodation centres. Noble Lords may ask why our amendment does not insert a reference to legal advice facilities in Clause 26(1). That is a legal technicality. Clause 26(1) deals with facilities that we will provide to residents and effectively gives the Home Office a power to fund those facilities. We are not taking a power to fund legal advice because, as we have explained, a power already rests with the Lord Chancellor and he has taken on responsibility for the provision of advice.
	Therefore, the government amendment provides a power for the Home Office to fund facilities only. It would not be appropriate for us to take a power to fund that which we did not intend to use. A further reason for not creating a duplicate power to fund in Clause 26 is that there is a power in Clause 97, which means that it will be open for the Home Office to grant fund voluntary organisations to provide advice to those in accommodation centres with a right of appeal.
	Noble Lords may ask why the Government cannot accept Amendment 117, which is a power to provide,
	"access to competent legal advice".
	That could be construed as a power to provide legal advice. That is why we prefer the formulation in the government amendment which makes it clear that the Home Office will provide the facilities, while the Legal Services Commission provides the advice.
	The Legal Services Commission is obliged to meet local needs and will do so by providing legal advice to asylum seekers in accommodation centres at all stages of the asylum process. It is committed to ensuring that that is done either by legal advisers based permanently on site or by means of visiting local advisers. The Home Office is committed to facilitating that by ensuring that all necessary facilities are made available.
	We cannot accept Amendment No. 119 as it is unnecessary and duplicates existing provision. It will be unnecessary for us to fund accommodation centre residents' expenses for travelling to see their lawyer because legal advice will be provided on site. In the event that an asylum seeker needs to make an exceptional journey to see a legal adviser because the local supplier cannot visit the centre, as may happen from time to time, the Legal Services Commission can provide help with the costs of that travel. Under the terms of legal aid, the solicitor or other adviser who is handling the case can obtain reimbursement for the cost of an asylum seeker's travel to the legal adviser for the purpose of instructing the adviser. That assistance would of course be subject to the asylum seeker qualifying for legal aid in the usual way.
	This approach is consistent with that currently taken by NASS, where NASS is expressly prohibited by Section 96(1)(c)—

Lord Clinton-Davis: I know that my noble friend is affected by time and other considerations, but it is impossible to understand his gabble. We are discussing a very important issue, so can he take it rather more slowly?

Lord Filkin: There we go! I have been accused of speaking slowly and of speaking quickly but never of gabble. I shall not repeat what I said because it will be set out clearly in Hansard and we shall all have the opportunity to study it. However, I shall continue at a more leisured pace.
	The approach is consistent with that currently taken by NASS, where NASS is expressly prohibited by Section 96(1)(c) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 from funding asylum seekers' legal expenses and does not fund the costs of travelling to visit a lawyer. Asylum seekers must therefore look to the Legal Services Commission for help with legal costs. At the appeal stage, they may also avail themselves of advice which the Home Office grant funds the Refugee Legal Centre, the Immigration Advisory Service and the Northern Ireland Law Centre to provide.
	As we already have a legal aid system, the Government do not consider that separate arrangements are required for asylum seekers. We cannot agree that the Home Office should have a duty to fund provision which will be unnecessary in an accommodation centre in most circumstances and is already available free of charge via the Legal Services Commission.
	The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked what facilities would be available for legal advisers. We cannot give precise details at this stage, but we intend to provide proper and decent facilities that are adequate for the purpose. We envisage at least consultation rooms and office facilities for visiting lawyers. Where they are based permanently on site, they would have all that they need to function there.
	I was also asked about the provision of other advice and support. We are happy to undertake to consider that. We would not want to stop NGOs and other advice givers being on site at centres and having access to residents. Indeed, we would want to encourage that as we believe it often assists the process.
	I recognise that I have covered a great deal of dense ground and I have even been slightly fast in doing so. I shall study with interest what has been said by Members of the Committee and I am sure that they will return the compliment. With that, I invite the noble Earl to agree to withdraw his amendment and hope that the Committee will accept government Amendment No. 121A.

Lord Kingsland: Perhaps I may suggest to the noble Lord one of the flaws in the argument so well developed by him. The Government cannot require the Legal Services Commission to furnish legal advice. The Home Office cannot do that, nor can the Lord Chancellor. It is a matter, in the last resort, for the discretion of the Legal Services Commission. It may find that a particular asylum seeker at a particular accommodation centre does not meet the criteria for making a financial grant. What will the Government do in those circumstances?

Lord Dholakia: Perhaps I, too, may put a further question to the Minister. The point at issue is that in the amendment we are talking about,
	"access to competent legal advice".
	I do not want to impinge on the integrity of the legal advice being provided, nor for that matter the integrity of the Legal Services Commission, but my experience and that in particular of the voluntary agencies in the field of making representation is that the matters are difficult and complex. They depend on the amount of legal casework that their solicitors are able to take.
	Rather than depending on the legal services, whether there is power to give advice or not, we are talking about experienced solicitors and advisers being available. On the basis of what the Minister has said, I doubt that. That is why it is important for the Minister to take into account the reason why we suggest "competent legal advice" and why it should be available other than from the Legal Services Commission.

Lord Filkin: Both noble Lords asked good and interesting questions. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, asked what the Home Office would do if the Legal Services Commission did not consider an asylum seeker to be eligible for legal aid. I shall reflect on the question, but my initial reaction is that it would do nothing. I believe that the Home Office would not put itself in the place of the Legal Services Commission and seek to provide a legal aid service duplicating that which is the responsibility of the LSC.

Lord Kingsland: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. As I understand the Government, one of the fundamental objectives of the legislation is to expedite asylum procedures. The crucial ingredient in meeting that objective is ensuring that the asylum seeker understands exactly what his legal position is. Understanding his legal position will help the Government to expedite the procedures, thus meeting their own legislative objective.
	If the Legal Services Commission is unprepared to finance an asylum seeker in a particular case, surely it is in the interests of the Government to step in and provide the necessary money. That will fulfil the purpose of the legislation.

Lord Filkin: The matter is clearly well expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. I repeat my offer to consider it, but today I will not go further than the position I have advanced.
	With regard to the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, about trying to ensure that it is competent legal advice, it is the LSC's intention to ensure that legal advice is made available at accommodation centres from quality-assured suppliers. Specific contracts will be entered into for that purpose. The process is being planned centrally by the LSC, which for several months has been involved in discussions with the Home Office on this issue.
	I offer that as a reasonable response and suggest that this is an opportunity for us to reflect on the matter in the coming months. I accept that we have not gone as far as Members of the Committee want without necessarily making a commitment that we can go any further.

Earl Russell: The debate has shown the Chamber at its best. It is not as a mere figure of speech that I want to thank all Members of the Committee who have spoken. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, and the Minister have found a way forward; that we must all talk further among ourselves about the issue.
	I shall respond to one or two of the points made. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, asked about "competent legal advice". I see what is worrying him, but I meant the word "competent" in a rather more technical sense. I meant competent in the field of asylum law and not just immigration law in general. I hope that with that response the noble Lord, Lord Renton, will think that it was not altogether a fruitless suggestion.
	The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, about the independence of legal advice is crucial, as is his point about the quality of the initial decision-making. That underlies the whole of any attempts to reform the asylum system. The poor quality of initial decision-making makes the whole thing go wrong and go on taking time, sometimes for ever and a day. I do not see how we can get that right without "competent" in the sense of qualified legal advice being available at the earliest stage. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, about advice and help from within the community. That is an important point and I am grateful to him for it.
	The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, raised the big problem about the impossibility of "requiring" the Legal Services Commission and about the Legal Services Commission being bound by criteria. Is it perhaps an answer to say that we ought to treat this as though it were a criminal rather than a civil matter? The penalty of being deported to a country where you may suffer death or torture is equivalent to a criminal penalty of considerable severity. The criteria for cases such as those for the Legal Services Commission are different from those for civil cases, in which one has to have a 50 per cent chance of success. Incidentally, in asylum law, judging a 50 per cent chance of success before a full hearing can be pretty difficult.
	The law is still in the process of evolution. Very distinguished legal brains on the Bench have been working on it, which tends to make the law change from time to time. Thus it is difficult to apply those criteria. Would applying the criminal criteria go any way towards meeting the question, or if that is not exactly the way to approach it, is there a solution in that direction?
	In the meantime, Amendment No. 121A is before us. It is a good amendment with the one reservation that I have already expressed. The other points can be discussed among ourselves over the summer. I thank all those who have spoken, in particular the Minister for his patience and consideration. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 118 and 119 not moved.]

Earl Russell: moved Amendment No. 120:
	Page 13, line 25, after "(1)(b)" insert "(provided that such amount shall not be less than the level of income support for the time being)"

Earl Russell: This amendment would provide that the support given to asylum seekers should be set at a level not less than that of income support for the time being. It has been a matter of considerable concern among a good many of us that, in effect, the present level of support provided is only 70 per cent of income support. That is a pretty low figure.
	Some noble Lords may have been present on Monday last when I asked a Question concerning what the Government regard as a minimum income necessary for subsistence. I do not think that I can pretend that I got an answer to the Question. Under the circumstances, I think that for the time being I am entitled to treat the level of income support as being that of the level of subsistence.
	If I remember correctly the debates of 1999, the answer I shall receive from the Minister in a few moments is that this is not necessary because a large amount is provided in the equipment at the centres; that is, goods that other people have to buy. It is a fair point as far as it goes, but what it leaves out is the fact that asylum seekers do not have access to the Social Fund.
	I recall another point made extremely persuasively by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham. She said that poverty becomes much more serious when it continues for a long time. That is because one does not face only the ordinary problems of day-to-day nourishment; there is the difficulty of all one's equipment wearing out. Shoes and overcoats need to be replaced. All this will happen over a period of six months, which incidentally is the length of time estimated by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, for the problem really to kick in. That is an interesting estimate.
	If asylum seekers arrive here from, say, Sierra Leone and are sent to Lancashire, they will not have with them the kind of winter clothing needed in Lancashire, especially when one is at all high up. A large number of things must be bought in order to keep warm, for which no application may be put to the Social Fund because asylum seekers are not eligible for it. I should have thought that that would cancel out all the arguments just about to be made by the Minister with regard to basic facilities being provided within the centres.
	The Home Secretary has put forward a further argument; that is, that he is afraid of what he terms "benefit shopping" among asylum seekers. With respect, the Home Secretary is not a social security specialist. He appears not to know that our benefits are below the average level for the European Union. The idea that we offer particularly generous benefits dates from a long time ago. It has not been true at any time that I have been in this House. Last night I checked the Eurostat figures in the Library and found that within the European Union we are ranked eighth out of 15 for benefits. That is not disgraceful. Of course there are several ways of measuring the figures and if the Minister wishes to bandy statistics with me, he is welcome to do so. However, I doubt whether this is the time of night for such an exercise.
	Anyone who comes to this country for the sake of benefit shopping would do so in ignorance. If the Minister can produce any cases of people doing so, then it will just go to sustain a point that I have been making for a long time; namely, that we cannot deter people from seeking asylum in this country by making the regime experienced by asylum seekers more harsh. That is because there is no provision for publishing the details of our social security provision in the press in Freetown, Sierra Leone or in the backstreets of Kandahar. People in those cities simply do not get to hear about them.
	I think that it is perfectly reasonable to suggest that asylum seekers should be provided with a level of income equivalent to income support for the time being. It is an amendment that I first moved in the Social Security Act 1989. I have been trying for a long time. I fear that I may have to try for a little longer, but I shall keep at it. I beg to move.

The Lord Bishop of Hereford: I rise to add a brief comment. I cannot say that this debate has conjured in my mind an image of Aeneas carrying his aged father out of the flames, but it has brought to mind those gaunt, forbidding buildings which one can still come across on country roads. They were provided as a result of the Poor Law Amendment Act 1834 to cater for those who somehow had to be helped. But the principle behind the Act was that the lives of those people should be less eligible than those of any other members of the community.
	I believe that that is something which lies behind the inadequate provision made for asylum seekers. By fixing the level of support at 70 per cent of income support, then by definition those people must be regarded as less eligible. Again and again the Minister has tried to persuade the Committee that accommodation centres will be desirable places and will provide better for asylum seekers than will any other form of accommodation.
	I believe that the matter of financial support is deeply serious. If we want this to be a country where asylum seekers are treated in a civilised manner, we should not set their income at a level that makes them in every way less eligible than is the lot of other people—in the sense of the 19th century legislation to which I have referred.
	The noble Earl, Lord Russell, has pointed out most eloquently the needs of people who arrive from very different climates and their lack of access to the Social Fund. I warmly support the amendment.

Lord Filkin: I was beginning to be encouraged by the economy with which the noble Earl, Lord Russell, advanced his own cause, indicated mine and gave a resolution of the two. On that basis we would make considerable progress.
	He is substantially right in his conjecture as to what I shall say. Nevertheless, let me explain why I cannot accept Amendment No. 120. It would mean that the cash support that we provide to accommodation centre residents would have to be the same as the equivalent income support allowance. Part VI of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 established the principle of treating asylum support separately from the mainstream benefits system. Providing asylum seekers with cash to exactly the same value as income support would undermine that principle.
	Concerns have been expressed about the value of NASS support. It is not correct to say that NASS support is worth only 70 per cent of income support. Taken as a package, NASS accommodation and support is broadly equivalent to what an asylum seeker would receive if he or she qualified for income support. The reason for this is, as the Committee knows, that NASS accommodation is fully furnished and includes all utility bills—heating, lighting and hot water—kitchen utensils and equipment, crockery, cutlery, towels and bedding. These items would not normally be provided to a person in receipt of income support and housing benefit.
	We intend to take the same approach for accommodation centres, where of course utility bills will be paid centrally and items such as bed linen will be provided by the accommodation centre itself. It would therefore be unfair to provide accommodation centre residents with full income support because that would mean that the value of their support would be greater than that of a person settled in dispersed accommodation.
	Our original intention was to provide accommodation centre residents with the majority of their support in kind with only a small cash allowance for incidental expenses. We set out this policy in the White Paper. However, as I indicated yesterday, we have reviewed this policy in the light of the response to the White Paper and what we know of European accommodation centres. We have decided that it is important to allow asylum seekers to cook for themselves, to provide a degree of autonomy over their day-to-day lives and to avoid encouraging institutionalisation. We shall therefore pay asylum seekers a subsistence allowance, in cash, to enable them to purchase food and other goods.
	We are still considering precisely how much this cash allowance should be, but we intend that it should be in the region of full NASS subsistence support and certainly substantially more than the pocket money we originally planned. We will consider carefully the case for any variations in support between NASS and accommodation centres and will ensure that any variations are justified. It is important that the value of support in the two systems is broadly comparable.
	For the reasons that I have given, I hope that noble Lords will understand why we cannot accept an amendment that would require us to pay accommodation centre residents full income support levels. Not only would they receive more than their counterparts supported by NASS but, because of the value of the in-kind support which centre residents will receive, they would be receiving total support worth more than the income support provided to people settled here. While my reply may not have surprised the noble Earl, Lord Russell, I hope that he will withdraw his amendment.

Earl Russell: I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford for his support. The Church is still the only institution represented in every parish in the country. It is therefore a valuable witness to the level of poverty and does a great deal of good which is very much appreciated.
	The Minister's calculations about the equivalence of the NASS package to income support seem to have been, at some stage in their life, somewhere near the Treasury. I remember what the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, had to say about the Treasury before the dinner adjournment. I agree with her. I also agree with what my colleague Susan Kramer had to say about the Treasury—that is, that no self-respecting business would allow its finance department so much power.
	It is not only the social fund which is missing from this package but the whole range of access to passported benefits. I had hoped to table an amendment on this but I gather that it is still floating around the e-ether and has not yet reached me. The Minister can expect to see it on Report. I do not believe that the Minister is right about the package.
	He is of course right about self-catering, which I welcomed yesterday. But, if one thinks about the problem that I raised then of buying tropical produce in Worcestershire, it is, if one can do it at all, likely to be rather expensive. If they are able to take advantage of the self-catering which is intended, many people will be buying things which are a good deal more expensive than in their country of origin—and if they cannot do that, what is the point of self-catering. So there will be a cost.
	As to the amount of cash to be provided, in Standing Committee in the other place on 9th May, Angela Eagle said at col. 174 that the Government were thinking about a range of £5 to £14 but that no final decisions have yet been made. Not even a student is expected to undertake self-catering for that kind of cost. Nor, indeed, as these people will be placed in remote places, are they likely to be able to afford the journey on that amount.
	When we had a debate on poverty in February 2000, I remember the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans drawing attention to someone who, with £60 a week of benefit, was spending a tenth of her benefit simply on going to the benefit office to claim it. That is a factor of putting accommodation centres in remote locations, which is likely to mean that almost the whole of the cash, if provided at that level, will be used to subsidise rural bus services. I have no objection to subsidising rural bus services, but I do not believe that we should rely on a supply of cheap asylum seekers to do it. There are better ways of doing that job.
	The Minister is right to speculate that I intend to withdraw this amendment at this time of the day. However, it is a matter about which he can expect to hear more before the Bill is over. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Filkin: moved Amendment No. 121:
	Page 13, line 26, leave out paragraph (b).

Lord Filkin: This amendment deletes subsection (2)(b) of Clause 26, in response to concerns raised in the other place.
	Subsection (2)(b) would allow the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring the manager of an accommodation centre to determine the amount of money to be provided to a centre resident. We included it in the Bill because we believed that the flexibility to allow local decisions would be helpful. However, concerns were expressed about placing decisions relating to the amount of money that asylum seekers receive into the hands of someone who is not a public servant. There were fears that that position might be abused, that arbitrary decisions might be made or that centre managers might have incentives to minimise the amount of cash handed out. We have listened to the concerns raised.
	Because a manager would have been able to take decisions only in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State, there were safeguards. However, we have reviewed the position and have concluded that it is not necessary to be able to take local decisions about the money that we give to centre residents. In practice, all decisions will be taken by the Secretary of State. Clause 26(2)(b) is therefore unnecessary, and we have decided to delete it. I beg to move.

Earl Russell: Without wasting words, I warmly welcome this amendment.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Filkin: moved Amendment No. 121A:
	Page 13, line 28, at end insert—
	"( ) The Secretary of State may arrange for the provision of facilities in an accommodation centre for the use of a person in providing legal advice to a resident of the centre."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 26, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 27 [Conditions of residence]:
	[Amendment No. 122 not moved.]

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 123:
	Page 14, line 13, at end insert "or under paragraph 2(5) of Schedule 3 to that Act (control pending deportation)."

Lord Bassam of Brighton: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 124, both of which are minor, technical amendments. Amendment No. 123 corrects an oversight by inserting a reference to paragraph 2(5) of Schedule 3 to the Immigration Act 1971 into Clause 27(7). It ensures consistency with Clause 21 and makes clear that any accommodation centre residence conditions imposed under Clause 27 of this Bill are additional to any residence restrictions imposed under paragraph 21 of Schedule 2 and paragraph 2(5) of Schedule 3 to the 1971 Act.
	Amendment No. 124 deletes what is now an unnecessary subsection. The purpose of subsection (8) of Clause 27 is already provided for by Clause 23(3), which was introduced at Committee stage in the other place. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 124:
	Page 14, line 14, leave out subsection (8).
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 27, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 28 [Financial contribution by resident]:

Earl Russell: moved Amendment No. 125:
	Page 14, line 34, leave out subsection (3).

Earl Russell: This amendment seeks to delete subsection (3) of Clause 28. The clause authorises the Secretary of State to draw on the assets of the asylum seeker to meet any charges that may be incurred in the centre. Subsection (3) authorises the Secretary of State to draw on assets outside the United Kingdom. Since the asylum seeker is in this country presumably because he cannot remain in his native country in safety, and since his assets are presumed to be in his native country, does not this require an impossibility? I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: We are grateful to the noble Earl for moving this amendment, if only because it will enable us to consider a minor drafting error that can be corrected in the next print of the Bill. Subsection (3) of Clause 28 should—and, of course, will—refer to "assets" in subsection (2), not subsection (3). We will ensure that that error is rectified.
	Leaving aside the error, we believe that subsection (3) is necessary. We cannot accept its wholesale deletion. When correctly drafted, it will make clear that the reference to "assets" in subsection (2) in the clause includes assets outside the United Kingdom. Subsection (2) will allow the Secretary of State to make regulations enabling him to recover some, or all, of the value of support that has been paid to an accommodation centre resident if that resident has asked for support and at the time of asking for support he had assets that were not realisable and if those assets have subsequently become realisable.
	We believe that the approach is entirely fair and that it is completely reasonable to include it in our definition of "assets"; that is, assets outside the United Kingdom. The point to bear in mind—and this goes to the heart of the noble Earl's point—is that we would only take account of assets outside the United Kingdom if those assets have become realisable. We believe that it is quite proper that an asylum seeker with, say, property in his home country that he cannot sell at the time that he applies for asylum support but which he subsequently sells or is able to sell should make a contribution to his support in the United Kingdom.
	There is no question of us taking account of assets abroad if the money could not be said to be reasonably available to the accommodation centre resident. In our view, the provisions for accommodation centres are entirely consistent with those for people currently supported by NASS under Part VI of the 1999 Act. The equivalent provision is set out in Regulation 17 of the Asylum Support Regulations 2000.
	There is, I believe, a point here that the noble Earl has missed; namely, that an asylum seeker resident in an accommodation centre could have assets not perhaps in his country of origin but in another county. It may not necessarily be the case that assets in the home country are inaccessible to him. Subsection (3) requires those assets to be realisable. If they are not realisable, they cannot be accessed and, indeed, cannot be taken into account. We believe that we have got this right and that it is a reasonable provision. Of course, its application will depend on all the circumstances involved in the case. With those words of reassurance—and they are intended as such—I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Avebury: Perhaps I may suggest to the Minister that the principal asset that an asylum seeker may have left behind in his country of origin may be the house in which he was living. Although it would be theoretically possible in many cases for him to instruct agents to sell the house, the normal course of action would be to allow other members of the family to live in it so that he would have a home to return to should the situation subsequently change; in other words, he would at least have somewhere to go.
	The Minister is proposing that such an asylum seeker should be forced to sell that accommodation. Therefore, if the dictatorship, or whatever, in his home country is overthrown and he is able to return after, say, 10 or 15 years, he would have nowhere to live. Does the noble Lord think that it is wise to impose such a solution on asylum seekers?

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: Before the Minister responds, perhaps I may put a question to him that arises from the language that he used in his response. I do not believe that the Minister was suggesting that the word "realisable" and the phrase "reasonably available" are equivalent to each other, but I wonder whether the phrase "reasonably available" includes references to exchange control. One can conceive of circumstances under these provisions where the person would be required to sell his house and then, having sold it and transformed it into cash, would not actually be able to remove the money from the country of origin.
	Therefore, in addition to the correction to the drafting of subsection (3) at the next printing of the Bill, it seems that a certain amount of tidying up of this particular provision will be needed before the Bill becomes law.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Noble Lords have made fair and reasonable points. However, I return to the point that the assets must be realisable. Moreover, they will be considered on a case by case basis. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, makes a very reasonable point. If the assets are not realisable, they cannot be taken into account. I think that there will be a test of reasonableness in all of this. While the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is right that property may well be an asylum seeker's major asset, there may well be other assets such as—I do not know—insurance policies, national savings certificates, pension schemes, premium bonds, stocks, shares and so on. Any of those may be assets that are accessible and available. As I said, it will be done very much on a case by case basis.
	As it is, NASS currently takes account of cash, savings, investments and certain types of property which belong to an applicant or may have belonged to an asylum seeker or his or her dependants. So all of that is already provided for in the current regulations. They have not caused great difficulty in their application, or at least we are not aware of them causing great difficulty. So this is continuing an existing provision.

Lord Greaves: The Minister clearly said that this provision is similar to that which applies to people currently obtaining NASS support. In the past two years, since NASS started operating, in how many cases has this provision been used? Of the 44,000 people that NASS has dispersed and the others that it has supported, how many have paid over money?

Lord Kingsland: As I understand it, the effect of the clause is to make the exercise by the Secretary of State an ex post one. In other words, someone will enter the accommodation centre, receive the support that everyone else receives, but, at a later stage, as a result of research into their finances, the Secretary of State will seek to claw back that money. That will be the subject matter of the proposed regulations.
	Before the Minister embarks on that course, he might like to ask the Home Office to reflect on the cost-benefit of the exercise. If the Government want to extract these sums from individuals owning property abroad, there will have to be, first, a fair amount of research abroad; and, secondly, perhaps a heavy investment in the actual recovery process. I can see the force of injecting into the Bill a disincentive system in relation to someone wrongfully claiming support. Conversely, I think that cost is an appropriate issue for the Home Office to address.

Lord Berkeley: We have to remember that many of those claiming asylum and using the Sangatte centre are alleged to have paid between £5,000 and £10,000 to get there. I do not know how they got that money or whether they paid it to the mafia or someone else, but it is possible that some of them have other assets. I think that this type of situation will be rare, and that it will be even rarer that, as other noble Lords have said, those assets will be realisable from the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, if someone has raised £10,000 to come to the United Kingdom as an economic migrant and is claiming asylum, and if it can be demonstrated that he has realisable assets, I do not know why he should not be made to pay for his accommodation while his application is being processed.

Earl Russell: My Lords, I respond first to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. I know one person personally who happens to have come not from Sangatte but ultimately from Kosovo via an expensive lorry journey across Europe beginning in the Valley of Death in Blace. That person had absolutely nothing left after that. That is, I think, a rather commoner case than the one that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, envisages.
	As for the Minister's reply, not for the first time I remind the Home Office that it is not a Foreign Office. In assessing the realisability of assets in another country the Home Office is literally outside its element. This is the office which believed in 1996 that opposition groups were allowed to flourish freely in Zaire and that in Turkey efforts were being made to encourage the better expression of the Kurdish cultural identity. I do not think that the Home Office's opinion that an asset is realisable is necessarily sound. The point that my noble friend Lord Avebury made about the house being very likely to be occupied by relatives is a serious one. The risk to the relatives is also serious in that case. In fact, it might be the first effect of putting such a provision into effect to bring another asylum seeker to our shores in great haste. I doubt whether that is what the Home Secretary intends.
	The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, about exchange controls is also one of considerable force. The sort of countries that produce large numbers of asylum seekers tend not to be the sort of countries that have particularly sound currencies. So once the asset is realised, it is likely to produce when it is brought over here a sum a great deal less than the Home Office intended, in which case the point of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, about the cost of realising the asset is of considerable force.
	The case of the asylum seeker with large numbers of assets in another country is not likely to be a sufficiently common one to justify this provision on its own. When people such as Saddam Hussein and General Mobutu seek asylum in the United Kingdom I shall take that point seriously. At present I do not feel the need to.
	The only asset that most asylum seekers will have is probably a small amount of family jewellery and ornament about their person. Those will often be family heirlooms and a precious reminder of a sense of identity which has been deeply challenged. I am reminded of the story of a couple in desperate poverty. They were equally desperately in love. Her one great asset was a wonderfully beautiful head of hair. His one asset was an inherited gold watch for which he had no watch chain. Come Christmas morning they discovered that she had cut off her hair and sold it to a wigmaker to buy a chain for his watch and that he had sold his watch in order to buy a gold chain to put round her hair. That really is the course of true love but I do not want it to be the course of British law. I shall not take the matter further tonight; we may hear more of it later. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 28 agreed to.
	Clause 29 agreed to.

Lord Filkin: moved Amendment No. 126:
	After Clause 29, insert the following new clause—
	"ADVISORY GROUPS
	(1) The Secretary of State shall appoint a group (to be known as an Accommodation Centre Advisory Group) for each accommodation centre.
	(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations—
	(a) confer functions on Advisory Groups;
	(b) make provision about the constitution and proceedings of Advisory Groups.
	(3) Regulations under subsection (2)(a) must, in particular, provide for members of an accommodation centre's Advisory Group—
	(a) to visit the centre;
	(b) to hear complaints made by residents of the centre;
	(c) to report to the Secretary of State.
	(4) The manager of an accommodation centre must permit a member of the centre's Advisory Group on request—
	(a) to visit the centre at any time;
	(b) to visit any resident of the centre at any time, provided that the resident consents.
	(5) A member of an Advisory Group shall hold and vacate office in accordance with the terms of his appointment (which may include provision about retirement, resignation or dismissal).
	(6) The Secretary of State may—
	(a) defray expenses of members of an Advisory Group;
	(b) make facilities available to members of an Advisory Group."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 127 to 131 not moved.]

Lord Filkin: moved Amendment No. 132:
	Before Clause 30, insert the following new clause—
	"THE MONITOR OF ACCOMMODATION CENTRES
	(1) The Secretary of State shall appoint a person as Monitor of Accommodation Centres.
	(2) The Monitor shall monitor the operation of this Part of this Act and shall, in particular, consider—
	(a) the quality and effectiveness of accommodation and other facilities provided in accommodation centres,
	(b) the nature and enforcement of conditions of residence, and
	(c) the treatment of residents.
	(3) In exercising his functions the Monitor shall consult—
	(a) the Secretary of State, and
	(b) such other persons as he considers appropriate.
	(4) The Monitor shall report to the Secretary of State about the matters considered by the Monitor in the course of the exercise of his functions—
	(a) at least once in each calendar year, and
	(b) on such occasions as the Secretary of State may request.
	(5) Where the Secretary of State receives a report under subsection (4)(a) he shall lay a copy before Parliament as soon as is reasonably practicable.
	(6) The Monitor shall hold and vacate office in accordance with the terms of his appointment (which may include provision about retirement, resignation or dismissal).
	(7) The Secretary of State may—
	(a) pay fees and allowances to the Monitor;
	(b) defray expenses of the Monitor;
	(c) make staff and other facilities available to the Monitor.
	(8) The Secretary of State may appoint more than one person to act jointly as Monitor (in which case they shall divide or share functions in accordance with the terms of their appointment and, subject to that, by agreement between them).
	(9) A person who is employed within a government department may not be appointed as Monitor of Accommodation Centres."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 133 and 134 not moved.]
	Clauses 30 to 32 agreed to.
	Clause 33 ["Prescribed": orders and regulations]:

Lord Filkin: moved Amendments Nos. 134A and 135:
	Page 18, line 27, at end insert—
	"( ) section (Length of stay: family with children),"
	Page 18, line 31, at end insert—
	"( ) section (Advisory Groups),"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 136 and 137 not moved.]
	Clause 33, as amended, agreed to.
	Clauses 34 to 36 agreed to.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: moved Amendment No. 138:
	Before Clause 37, insert the following new clause—
	"INDEPENDENT DOCUMENTATION CENTRE
	(1) The Secretary of State shall establish by order a documentation centre to provide country of origin information for use in the determination of asylum applications.
	(2) The order providing for the establishment of the documentation centre shall provide that responsibility for the functioning of the documentation centre will rest with a person or persons who is or are independent of the Secretary of State.
	(3) The Secretary of State may provide financial support to an organisation in the United Kingdom to enable that organisation to assist in the functioning of the documentation centre.
	(4) The Secretary of State shall not make an order under this section unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament."

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: The purpose of the amendment is to create an independent documentation centre, which would conduct country risk assessments with the speed and confidence necessary to allow a junior official to decide that a claim was wholly unfounded, and to do so with the conviction required to withstand judicial review.
	To make the process set out by the Bill work, we must have a system of country risk assessments that carries weight and which will stand the full test of judicial challenge. We can do that by having a documentation centre that is independent of the Home Office responsible for producing country risk assessments, as the Refugee Council proposes. It would carry credibility because it would not be influenced by a desire to achieve a particular result in appeals.
	When I raised this matter on Second Reading I was both encouraged and intrigued by the response of the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, on what he acknowledged was an important matter. He stated:
	"We have agreed to set up an advisory committee. On Report the Home Secretary said that such a committee would have to be open and transparent and prepared to have consultations with the Government and the two main Opposition parties as to its make-up. That work will commence as soon as possible. That is a clear commitment".—[Official Report, 24/6/02; col. 1174.]
	I am encouraged because the Minister stated that the Government have given a clear commitment in this regard. However, I am also intrigued because he stated that the Government have agreed to set up an advisory committee and that the work will commence "as soon as possible". That was not the impression conveyed by the Home Secretary in another place on Report on 11th June at col. 798 of Hansard, when he acknowledged the concerns that have been expressed about whether the assessment of countries is sufficiently clear or rapid. He rebutted the suggestion that the assessment of countries is not sufficiently clear or rapid. He also said that, if it were not, then,
	"we need an advisory committee to assist us. Such a committee would have to be open and transparent and prepared to have consultations with the Government and the two main Opposition parties on its make-up. It would have to help us with the process without removing the existing formulations, which draw down all the known available evidence".—[Official Report, Commons, 11/6/02; cols. 798-799.]
	That makes it appear that the Home Secretary is saying that there is nothing wrong with the system but, if there were, we might do something about it. That is rather different from the statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, at Second Reading. Therefore, with great encouragement from what the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, said, I can only assume that the Home Secretary now accepts that the assessment of countries is not currently sufficiently clear or rapid after all.
	As we have been assured by the Minister that work on the advisory committee will commence as soon as possible, several questions arise. When will that work commence, or is it already taking place? If it has not started, will it do so before we reach Report stage in the autumn? Shall we be given details of the Government's plans by then so that they can form part of an amendment which I may table for discussion on Report? As, according to the Minister, the committee would have to be prepared to have consultations with the two main opposition parties on the committee's make-up, what procedures are the Government putting in place to achieve that? I look forward to hearing the Minister's plans and perhaps discussing the matter with the Government over the summer. Finally, when do the Government expect the advisory committee to be operational?
	The Minister will recall that when the subject matter of my amendment was discussed in another place on 11th June my right honourable friend Mr Letwin welcomed the Home Secretary's idea of an advisory committee but made it clear that we do not believe that it goes far enough. That is reported at col. 804 of Commons Hansard. We do not accept that the present system of country risk assessment is merely in need of oversight by an advisory committee. The oversight is welcome, but the present system of assessment is woefully and intrinsically deficient.
	The important issue is that if the Government want Clause 82(2) and subsections (1) and (3) of Clause 101 to have any chance of sustaining themselves under judicial review they will need to move to a genuinely independent country risk assessment at the very least.
	If the Government are not able to provide assurances that their plans for an advisory committee will achieve the same objectives as my amendment and that they will set up the advisory committee swiftly with the assistance of the views expressed by Members of this House in debates on the Bill throughout Committee, then we may have to return to the matter on Report to press the Government rather hard. Certainly, having had the encouragement of what the Minister said at Second Reading, I hope that he will be able to give even more encouraging information tonight. I beg to move.

Lord Dholakia: I support the amendment. It had our support in the Commons and we are delighted to support it in this Chamber. This is probably one of the most important amendments. It is designed to bring a fresh approach in the determination of asylum applications.
	First, perhaps I may explain why. I had the privilege of visiting the headquarters in London where adjudicators deal with important aspects of individuals' applications. Much of the source material is provided by the Immigration Service and often adjudicators establish their own information system to supplement what is available.
	I have sat on some of the adjudications in the past and I have no doubt that adjudicators perform a very delicate task in sifting information provided by government sources and information available to them through the work of some of the valuable international agencies, such as the UNHCR, Amnesty International and so on.
	Often, much depends on the accurate analysis of such information because, for many, a wrong decision resulting in deportation could lead to death. I have often seen evidence which does not tally with what is known about a particular country. It is often the diligence of the adjudicator that makes a difference between life and death. We must build on that. The Government have nothing to fear. In fact, I do not believe that our High Commissions or, for that matter, our embassies have the same depth of knowledge as the international agencies, which work at grass-roots level and have first-hand information which is required by the adjudicators about the country of origin.
	I pay tribute to Amnesty International, Save the Children, Oxfam and many other organisations which have made a great difference to the status of refugees in the way in which their applications are processed. It is vital that such a centre is independent of the Government. There are a number of reasons for that. First, most importantly it establishes an element of fairness. Secondly, it builds the confidence of the applicant in the system; and, thirdly, it assists adjudicators to reach a decision based on up-to-date information about the country of origin.
	The estimate by the Government shows a likely large increase in the removal of rejected applications. That has been estimated by government sources to be up to 30,000 per annum. In the absence of an independent documentation centre, many of the decisions could be reached on the basis of unsatisfactory information. The larger the number of removals, the greater the danger that some genuine asylum seekers may face a wrong decision. To realise that, one has to consider the work of the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture. In no way are we denying the right of the Government to remove those who do not qualify, but seek simply to assist them to reach the correct decision.
	There is a general acceptance by many people working in the field of immigration that that is the right approach. There is no need for further research. All such research would confirm is the weakness of the present system and the need for an improved approach. Today we have the opportunity to set up an independent documentation centre and we should proceed with that. We should ensure that it has the funding to make it possible. I support the amendment.

Lord Hylton: This is an important amendment, which I support. It builds on the Canadian model. In that country an independent documentation centre has been functioning satisfactorily for a number of years. I believe that the amendment would be strongly supported by Professor Goodwin-Gill, the professor of international refugee law at Oxford University.
	If accepted, the amendment would end the paradoxical and unsatisfactory situation which has cropped up from time to time over the past 10 years in which the Home Office and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office have been giving out completely different and conflicting opinions about the situation in individual countries. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, gave the example of Turkey and one other example.
	An independent centre of this kind would help greatly to improve the quality of first decisions in asylum cases, thus leading to fewer appeals and fewer judicial reviews. I hope that this will be pursued.

Lord Avebury: Most practitioners who have considered the country assessments from the Home Office, which are available on its website, will have noticed inaccuracies, omissions and delays in putting the information on to the site. The Home Office country assessments are meant to be amended every six months. Sometimes they are not. Sometimes, the situation in countries of origin can move rapidly. I shall give one example.
	In Zimbabwe we pressed the Government to take note of the fact that the killings, arrests, torture and other violations of human rights of members of the opposition, and in particular of the main opposition party, were reaching a crescendo which justified exceptional measures not to send people back until a complete evaluation of their position had been made by the Secretary of State. For weeks that was resisted, until finally, just after Christmas, it was decided that we were right and that the removals should be suspended.
	If the Home Office had been monitoring the situation as closely as other people had been, it would have agreed with us and perhaps some people who subsequently found themselves in great trouble with the regime in Harare would not have been sent back. Therefore, the independence of the proposed centre is important.
	Any independent agency worth its salt would make certain that the information it provided to adjudicators was bang up-to-date. A situation can change drastically for the worse. People who were reasonably safe in a country until maybe a few weeks ago may suddenly find themselves at risk. If the information available to adjudicators is not bang up-to-date they may be completely unaware of changes in situations. Certainly that may be so if they had to rely on the six-monthly periodic reports of the Home Office, which frequently, in the experience of practitioners, are not complete. Therefore, they do not give an accurate picture of what is happening in those countries.

Earl Russell: I add to that briefly. I mentioned to the Minister the two pamphlets by Alasdair Mackenzie—No Reason At All and Still No Reason At All. In the second of those he pointed out that the Home Office was still returning asylum seekers to Kosovo after the NATO bombing had begun. Being not up-to-date cannot go much further than that.

Lord Filkin: I thank all noble Lords who have spoken on this important debate. I note that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, seeks to drive a wedge between the Home Secretary and myself. I assure her that she will not succeed in that. I find that I agree with the Home Secretary on almost all things.
	As the Committee knows, country of origin information was established in 1997 to provide asylum decision-makers with accurate and balanced country information as the background against which individual asylum claims can be considered and assessed. It has been indicated that that is of considerable importance in terms of fairness, speed and trying to make sure that original decisions are well founded and therefore do not require to go to other and more complex stages.
	The assessments do not contain Home Office opinion or policy. They do not interpret information. They are compiled from a wide variety of independent, reliable and well-recognised sources.
	Although they are the primary source of information available to caseworkers, the Home Office assessments are not the only source. Caseworkers have access at all times to senior caseworkers with country knowledge and to the CIPU, who produce country assessments. Applicants are entitled to put any other evidence they think is relevant before the adjudicator or tribunal. The CIPU reports are not binding.
	A number of criticisms have been made of CIPU reports. It is not appropriate to respond to them here and now. The current country reports are held in high regard. UNHCR country background reports often extensively quote from them. All other western countries use them as source material in their asylum procedures. That is not to argue that they are perfect—that would be foolish—but it would not be right to claim that they are grossly flawed or fundamentally inaccurate. It is not a case for saying that we should not seek to make the system better.
	Last year IND commissioned a research project to evaluate the content and use of the country information produced by CIPU. That work will assist in identifying the scope for instigating more structured systems for quality-assuring CIPU produces. The research project's methodology involved interviews and surveys of internal and external stakeholders as well as identifying the approach taken in other countries. We have recently received the results of that research, which broadly validate CIPU's work.
	Previous Ministers have undertaken to examine the suggestion that an independent documentation funded by, but independent of, government should be established to undertake preparation of country assessments. Probably the only example of that is in Canada. We had intended to do that in the light of research findings, but bearing in mind that an independent centre would be expensive.
	My noble friend Lord Rooker was recently sent a copy of a paper by Professor Guy Goodwin-Gill, the president of the Refugee Legal Centre, which discussed the case for an independent documentation centre. It also introduced the option to establish an advisory board with appropriate representation from the different constituencies and published guidelines on the production of assessments.
	We had already thought that a more cost-effective alternative might be to establish an independent panel of external people eminent in this field to provide scrutiny and oversight of the quality and content of the bi-annual country assessments and equally of the important bulletin updates that supplement them when time and circumstances move rapidly.
	The evidence presented in the research project's report suggests that many of the problems which currently arise in the use of country of origin information during the asylum determination process would not necessarily be resolved by the establishment of an independent documentation system.
	The research project's findings make clear that while the IND's country assessments are effective tools which contribute significantly to the asylum decision-making process, considerable value could be added to the quality of country information by establishing a user panel for those who utilise country of origin information, and an expert panel of topic and country specialists.
	This work is already being taken forward: an IND working party is being established to take forward the research project's recommendations towards improving the quality and effectiveness of the country assessments and other recommendations, including ensuring that the draft assessments are reviewed by expert advisers.
	An IND users' group has been set up to identify more specifically the information needed to assist in determining asylum applications. Initial discussions have highlighted the usefulness of greater knowledge concerning the availability of medical care.
	We believe that the most constructive and cost-effective way forward will be to establish an expert advisory panel, which will assist in and inform the continuing process of improving the quality, impartiality and objectivity of the CIPU country assessments.
	The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred to the situation in Zimbabwe. He was right in signalling that the normal period is six months, but, as I indicated, the bulletins are an equally important part of updating in rapidly moving situations. It is crucial that they are brought out rapidly in such circumstances. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, reminded me of Alasdair Mackenzie's pamphlets.
	In terms of implementation, first, let me repeat what was said. We shall be having consultation with opposition parties, both about what is proposed and about its implementation. I firmly intend that the consultation should take place well before the Report stage, so that Members opposite are aware of our thinking and have an opportunity at least to comment on it, both in terms of the printed proposals and in terms of their implementation.
	Officials are currently considering potential membership from a range of experts from the voluntary sector, those engaged in research and those who are knowledgeable about the experiences of asylum seekers in their countries of origin. There will be consultation, as one would expect, as to their acceptability. It is important that we have the meetings with opposition parties relatively soon, so that noble Lords are aware of the broad thrust of our approach before we get into too much of the detail.
	In the light of my remarks, I hope that the noble Baroness will be minded to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I welcome his offer of consultation with Members from these Benches and from the Liberal Democrat Benches on the proposals and their implementation in terms of the advisory group. It seems that there will be quite a variety of changes—user panels, expert panels and goodness knows what. I certainly welcome the Minister's remark that the consultation should take place "relatively soon".
	I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Dholakia, Lord Hylton, and Lord Avebury, for their support on this matter. I was struck by the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. He made the point that the situation changes rapidly in these countries and that the biannual report—the six-monthly change in the assessment—is not realistic. It does not catch up with the real world and the real situation faced by people who believe that they have to leave their countries and come here. That point must be strongly borne in mind in terms of the tests as to whether the Government's proposals and their implementation will properly meet the needs of the system. At the moment, I have the residual feeling that the Minister's helpful description of the current system and of how the Government might try to adapt it to make it slightly better, might be like Emmental cheese. It might be a case of trying to stuff up the holes rather than churning a completely new cheese which might be more acceptable—I do not want to be rude to those who make Emmental, although it is not one of my favourites.
	Although I welcome the Minister's remarks and look forward to consultation, we shall look carefully at those proposals to make sure that they meet all our concerns. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 37 [Asylum-seeker: form of support]:

Lord Hylton: moved Amendment No. 139:
	Page 19, line 23, at end insert—
	"( ) In section 96(1)(c) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (c. 33), for "other than legal expenses or" there is substituted "including any travel expenses incurred to obtain legal advice, but not"."

Lord Hylton: This modest amendment attempts to improve the Bill across the board. During earlier discussions in Committee there was universal agreement from all sides of the Chamber on the importance of independent legal advice for securing high quality first decisions in asylum cases. I ask the Government, therefore, to understand the situation of people claiming refugee status who have been dispersed to towns well outside London and the South-East where experienced asylum and immigration advisers are few or non-existent. The same may also apply to residents of future accommodation centres. Such people may have to travel long distances to secure the advice they need. They are likely to be dependent on less than 100 per cent income support and may have great difficulty in finding their own travel expenses. We know that there are some 76,000 applicants already supported by NASS.
	Secondly, there will be others who have spent more than six months in this country and who may have succeeded in obtaining low-paid work. They, too, especially if they are supporting dependants, may have difficulty in affording to travel perhaps from Lancashire or north-east England to London.
	The purpose of this modest amendment is to make it possible, although not mandatory, for the Secretary of State to reimburse genuine travel expenses. The Committee will appreciate that in almost all cases it will be much cheaper for the applicant to travel to the adviser rather than vice versa.
	I table the amendment in the interests of getting good quality first decisions and proper advice on appeals. This is in the interest of fairness, justice and the proper discharge of this country's international obligations. I beg to move.

Lord Greaves: I support the amendment. I understand that it applies to asylum seekers accommodated under the existing arrangements of dispersal rather than at accommodation centres. A small minority of people are seriously disadvantaged by finding themselves at the opposite end of the country from those who are providing them with legal advice and assistance.
	That occurs legitimately when people are housed in one area and, for good reasons, are moved to another place perhaps through circumstances relating to their community. That has occurred to my knowledge in the past two years. A person living in Lancashire may have a solicitor in London who is providing good advice which he does not want to lose. He may have a good legal adviser in Manchester but, for whatever reason, that person moves to Nottingham or Birmingham. There is no doubt that that causes difficulties.

Lord Filkin: I understand the concerns of the noble Lord in proposing the amendment. For reasons I shall explain the Government believe that it is not necessary.
	In England and Wales the Legal Services Commission already provides a means for an asylum seeker who is eligible for legal aid to obtain help with the cost of travel to obtain legal advice. The solicitor who is handling the case is able to obtain reimbursement for the cost of the asylum seeker's travel to the solicitor for the purpose of instructing the solicitor. He may also be reimbursed by the commission for his own travel costs if it is necessary for him to travel to see an asylum seeker in connection with an asylum claim. In Scotland, that is not the case, but solicitors may be reimbursed if it is necessary for them to travel to see an asylum seeker. Legal aid in Scotland is devolved to the Scottish Parliament, and it would be inappropriate to place additional burdens on Scottish Ministers without proper consultation.
	This is the best way of ensuring that, where necessary, such costs are met. It avoids the difficulties of obliging asylum seekers to apply to the Home Office for a ticket in advance or for reimbursement afterwards and thereby risking inconvenience, or worse, if they have to wait longer than they had expected for their request to be dealt with. In the light of what I have said, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

Earl Russell: The point about Scotland is well made and well taken. However, if the Minister were to approach my right honourable friend Mr Wallace, who is Minister for Justice in Scotland, he might find that the procedure by Sewel Motion, which has been used before, was not altogether beyond my right honourable friend's imagination. The fact that the matter requires independent action by the Scottish Parliament does not prove that the Scottish Parliament might not be prepared—if suitably approached—to undertake such action on its own behalf.
	According to information reaching the Immigration Advisory Service, the Refugee Council and many other concerned people, the fact that the Legal Services Commission has the power to meet such claims does not mean that they are being met in anything like adequate quantities. That is something which I do not think the Minister realises. We hear constantly about the kind of cases to which my noble friend Lord Greaves referred. In such cases, justice is not done. There are prolonged appeals, judicial reviews and all the types of delay that most irritate the Home Secretary.
	The Minister has not yet taken on board the importance of the problem of initial decision making. There are, for example, demands for inappropriate standards of proof. There are particular problems with that in cases relating to claims of torture. The medical evidence is heard, and then it is decided that it does not provide proof that the injuries were inflicted by torture. It is of the nature of medical evidence that it can describe injuries but cannot prove who inflicted them or from what motive they were inflicted. That is an inappropriate standard of proof. The presence of a competent lawyer early on could put it right.
	I recall accompanying the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, on a deputation to the Home Office about the case of somebody who had scars that had been inflicted by heavy beating. The Home Office insisted that the wounds were self-inflicted. The scars were on his back.
	If lawyers were present at an earlier stage, we could save a great deal of the Home Office's time and everyone else's by getting such matters settled earlier. I beg the Minister—if he cannot direct the Legal Services Commission—to set up another fund, independent of the commission, with the collaboration of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who, after all, lives not far from here. The Minister can go and talk to him. One way or another, it must be done, or the whole thing will remain as much of a mess as it has been all the time that I have been associated with it.

Lord Filkin: I thank the noble Earl for his comments. I am fully seized of the importance of getting initial decision making of the highest possible quality. That was made clear in our discussions yesterday. I see the relevance of the points made to that objective.
	Between now and Report, I will discuss the issue with my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. As for Mr Wallace, I enjoyed working with him recently in Luxembourg. I am reluctant, for obvious reasons, to infringe on the role of the Scottish Parliament, but I shall ensure that he is aware of the debate and the issues.

Lord Avebury: When the Minister has discussions with the Lord Chancellor, will he also put it to him that it is equally necessary for people to have access to competent medical and other advice, as well as legal advice? I do not know whether the Legal Services Commission is empowered in cases of torture or alleged torture, such as my noble friend Lord Russell described, to pay for someone's transport costs to visit a doctor or other medical expert so that that information can be put together with the legal advice.

Lord Hylton: I am grateful to those noble Lords who have helpfully spoken in support of my amendment. I am equally grateful to the Minister for the discussions that he says he will have. They will be parallel to those with the Legal Services Commission, which are already on offer, concerning accommodation centres. This may well be a matter to which we have to return on Report, but meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 139A not moved.]

Lord Filkin: moved Amendment No. 140:
	Page 19, line 38, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
	"(b) may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament."

Lord Filkin: The amendment would change the parliamentary procedure for making orders under Clause 37 of the Bill from the negative resolution procedure to the draft affirmative resolution procedure. It will ensure that before any order aimed at ending cash only support for asylum seekers, whether in all cases or in specified circumstances, can be made and put into effect, it will have to be laid in draft before both Houses of Parliament for approval.
	That change fulfils the assurance given on Report in the other place that a suitably worded amendment to achieve the same effect as an amendment proposed by the honourable member for Walthamstow would be tabled when the Bill came before this House.
	I hope that the proposed amendment will do much to assuage the concerns expressed about the powers that the Government are taking in Clause 37. It means that the Secretary of State can exercise those powers only when and if he has obtained the approval of both Houses to the terms of any order that he wishes to make. I commend the amendment to the Committee.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	On Question, Whether Clause 37, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord Dubs: My purpose in opposing the Motion is to seek more information from my noble friend. Although I welcomed Amendment No. 140, which means that the Secretary of State will need an affirmative resolution, he is still taking powers to limit entitlement to social security for asylum seekers in certain circumstances. The present position—before the Bill is enacted—is that asylum seekers can be dispersed and receive support plus accommodation but if they choose not to be dispersed and instead live with friends and family they receive support only. It is the second option of receiving support only that will be removed by the clause if the Secretary of State decides to give effect to it.
	That is a retrograde step. Some asylum seekers have friends and family and find it much more satisfactory—as we all would—to stay with them rather than be dispersed when those are the only people they know in this country. Incidentally, if the Government seek to deny the option, then either asylum seekers will have to stay with their friends and family in penury, receiving no support at all, or they will have to move into accommodation on dispersal, which in turn will be more costly for the Government.
	This is not a satisfactory situation. It could result in the separation of families, it could result in destitution and it could have an adverse effect on refugee community organisations which provide support for members of their communities who arrive in this country as asylum seekers. They would have to provide much more support for those asylum seekers who chose to stay with their family and friends but who no longer were in receipt of any government assistance. I hope that the Government will think again because I do not believe that this is a helpful way forward.

Lord Greaves: On behalf of these Benches I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, in his proposal that Clause 37 should not stand part of the Bill.
	The clause sets out a drastic step in view of the existing situation in terms of NASS support for asylum seekers. No doubt the Minister will have the exact figures, but a large proportion of asylum seekers presently take the option of support only and then find their own accommodation. It will be interesting to hear the Minister's justification for removing that option.
	At the moment many asylum seekers take the support-only option because if they are dispersed, they may be sent to the north of England, to Scotland or to the West Country, while generally their friends and family members live in the South East. Usually asylum seekers take the option of living with their relatives and friends, some of whom may be settled refugees from the same part of the world. There is a strong argument for the advantages of those arrangements in terms of the welfare of asylum seekers themselves. Rather than being placed in a terraced house in Nelson, Lancashire, or a tower block in Liverpool, living with people they have never met before, they live instead with people they know who can provide them with moral, welfare and psychological support. That is a valid option.
	I should like to ask the Minister the following questions: if this proposal had been enacted over the past two years, what proportion of those who presently accept support-only assistance from NASS do the Government estimate would have opted for full assistance, which would cost more than the existing arrangements? What proportion do the Government estimate will opt for accepting no assistance whatever and for living as best they can off the resources of other people? Unless the Government have made those assessments, then they do not understand the implications of their policy.

Earl Russell: I have promised the Minister that I shall not say any more about the denial of support tonight and I shall not do so. However, I will say this. If you have seen practically every relative shot by Serbs, then you do tend to cling rather desperately to any surviving relatives that you may have in this country. That is an emotion that I think it would be unwise to deny.

Lord Hylton: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for proposing that this clause should not stand part. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, pointed out that many current asylum seekers receive cash-only support. There is good evidence to show that something in the order of 40 per cent of the 76,000 asylum seekers currently supported by NASS take that option. That represents a large number of people.
	I also understand that in May in another place, Ministers stated that it would be a long time before Clause 37 would come into effect. How long is that long time likely to be? It is important that we have some idea of the timeframe and the conditions that will have to be satisfied before the clause will take effect.

Lord Avebury: The Explanatory Notes are silent on this clause. They give no indication of the motivation behind it. I understand that the Government's official position is that the support only decisions have yet to be made. There is no timescale involved but they want the power in Clause 37 should it prove necessary, in undefined circumstances, to invoke it.
	A leaked memorandum from Downing Street was published in the Guardian last June indicating that the Government intend to remove support only some time this coming autumn. If that is the case and the Government have already made the decision, they had better come clean now. If they do not and what was in the leaked memo is put into effect this autumn, Parliament will have a serious grievance against the Government for withholding material facts from the House when they came to the decision to allow this clause to remain part of the Bill.

Lord Filkin: The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is right, at least in the respect that this concerns the creation of a power to remove or restrict an asylum seeker's ability to choose to receive essential living needs support without accommodation.
	Under current arrangements, asylum seekers who do not wish to take NASS accommodation are able to claim support to cover essential living needs and to live with family or friends. NASS has no control over where they live and few means of checking whether they are living at the address they state. This makes it difficult to maintain contact, which is an important part of the new, more managed asylum process.
	It has proved to be the case that very large numbers of those who take up living needs only support remain in London and the South East, often in overcrowded and unsatisfactory accommodation in areas where large numbers of asylum seekers are placing great pressure on local services. This is very problematic and does nothing to help alleviate the pressure on services in these areas which the introduction of the dispersal scheme was designed to help.
	As we move to a more managed asylum process—and this undoubtedly will be a progressive rather than a rapid process—with improved contact throughout the process and the introduction of accommodation centres, it is important that asylum seekers are not able to evade this more managed environment by choosing essential needs only support. The ability to restrict such support, at least in principle, is therefore an important feature of the new asylum process.
	The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked about the proportion of people receiving cash only support out of the total on NASS support. The latest figure to March 2002 is that 30,000 are receiving subsistence only support out of a total of 74,000. We seem to have similar figures on that.
	I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, understands that, because of the time of night and the hypothetical nature of his question about the proportion who would opt for NASS accommodation if it was the only option available—I think that was the question—there is no realistic answer.

Lord Greaves: I do not understand at all. If the Government are bringing in a new policy designed for certain objectives, they ought to have an assessment of what the effect of that policy will be in relation to those objectives. If they do not, they will be floundering.
	Why should the provision of support of any kind be automatically tied to the Government's desire to keep more control over where people live while they are claiming asylum? Does not the fact that people can opt out of support and live where they want nullify the objective of doing so? If it is to be made a condition of seeking asylum that people live in a certain place, surely that can be made a condition regardless of whether people are receiving support?

Lord Filkin: I agree with the noble Lord. Were the Government on the point of implementing such a power, one would expect a careful assessment of its implementation process, costs, timetable and burden. In that respect, the noble Lord is right. I perhaps should have prefaced my remarks by saying that we have no plans to introduce this measure in the near future. I have no knowledge of any proposal for implementation in the autumn, and no timetable has been drawn up to that effect. I can therefore give a clear assurance in that regard.
	With regard to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, about the importance of maintaining contact, in essence, the state provides, as I believe it should, substantial support in aggregate, if not on an individual basis, to asylum seekers who are destitute. The current cost of that provision is approximately £1 billion per year. That does not mean that needs are not being met from that cost, but it is a substantial sum. The Government's view is that if people wish to be supported, it is perfectly reasonable that the Government should be entitled to know where people are and to exercise some discretion about the form in which such assistance will be offered. I do not wish to prolong the debate. Broadly, that is the Government's position on that matter.

Earl Russell: The Minister has not yet taken on board the force of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, about the dependence of refugees on members of their own community. That removes a great deal of the burden from many of the institutions of state, notably, social services. The budgets of social services departments are not in a particularly comfortable state. I am sure that the Minister will have heard some of the recent complaints about care homes; it is a constant refrain.
	By depriving refugees of the support of their own communities, the Minister is pickling a rod for his own back. He may consider the case of the Somali who was sent to Brighton, where not a single person spoke his language. That created a very considerable burden. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, looks surprised. It is an NACAB story, and it is in the habit of getting such matters right.
	I also believe that the Minister should not blame the burdens on the South East, which I agree have been considerable, simply on the fact of people being allowed to live where they like. That was the result of two consecutive matters: first, the withdrawal of benefits by the 1996 Act; secondly, shortly afterwards, the judgment of Mr Justice Collins that asylum seekers were entitled to support under the provisions of the National Assistance Act 1948. That placed a burden on local authorities, which admittedly was a great deal too heavy for them, and they had a legitimate grievance. However, their grievance was not the presence of the asylum seekers but the Government's failure to shoulder a burden that should have been their own.

Lord Hylton: In his reply, the Minister mentioned some 30,000 people whom he felt may be attempting to evade the forthcoming managed system. We agree that the way to prevent such evasion is to have a comprehensive network of reporting centres and to make use of the recently introduced application registration card, rather than to take away cash-only support from that category of people.

Lord Filkin: I do not want needlessly to prolong the debate at this time of day, particularly as the Government have no immediate plans for implementation under this clause. I certainly did not intend to suggest that there were in London 30,000 people seeking to avoid their reporting obligations. I was merely marking the reality of the situation that the concentration of very large numbers of support-only asylum seekers in London creates challenges and burdens for local government and for society in some of those areas.
	However, be that as it may, there is no immediate plan to implement this proposal. I am certain that the observations made by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and other noble Lords about the cost effectiveness of moving towards implementation of this, as well as the other humanitarian points that have been raised, will be considered by the Government before we decide to move forward on implementation.

Clause 37, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 38 [Destitute asylum-seeker]:

Earl Russell: moved Amendment No. 140A:
	Page 20, line 21, leave out from second "the" to ", or" in line 22 and insert "claimant receives notice of the Secretary of State's decision"

Earl Russell: I shall move this amendment, but I shall not move Amendments Nos. 141 and 141B which are grouped with it. Amendment No. 140A would make provision for the termination of support to run from when the asylum seeker is notified of the failure of his claim—that is, when he receives the notification—not from when the Secretary of State is thought to have despatched it. It is all too common now for people whose claims have been refused to discover the fact not through a letter from Lunar House, still less from the Secretary of State; but from a letter from NASS saying, "Since the rejection of your claim, your support has been terminated". So they bother to let NASS know but they do not bother to inform the claimant. That is not the way that it ought to be. It creates a shock, a sudden collapse of support, which can be very serious in its consequences.
	I have referred the Minister previously to Alasdair Mackenzie. He quotes one case of a Home Office letter of refusal that reached the applicant 10½ months after the date on its letter-head. That is the sort of example that makes me suggest that the clock should run from the time of the applicant's receipt of the letter and not from the date that appears on the top of the letter. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I can understand why the noble Earl has moved the amendment. It would certainly be unfair to stop supporting an asylum seeker whose claim had been determined in circumstances where, through no fault of his own, he was unaware that a decision on his claim had been reached.
	The purpose of Section 94(3) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, which this clause seeks to amend, is to ensure that asylum seekers whose claims have been determined are given a period of grace to make other arrangements for support when their entitlement to support under Part VI of that Act ends.
	As we understand it, the noble Earl's proposed amendment seems to be aimed at ensuring that the start of the so-called "grace period", during which an asylum seeker can still receive support under Section 95 of the 1999 Act once he has received a decision by the Secretary of State on his asylum claim, begins when he actually receives the decision notice—I believe that that understanding is shared—not when it is sent out by the Secretary of State. However, that is already the intention and effect of Section 94(3).
	We do not argue that the posting of a decision notice constitutes notification; nor are we clear what is wrong with the present arrangements. Service of a decision notice is either carried out in person or by post using the Recorded Delivery mail where a person is required to sign for the letter received. I should have thought that that was entirely adequate in all the circumstances.
	I do not see how we can go any further; otherwise, it would mean us serving around 100,000 notices personally each year. Of course, the reputation of the Home Office in this field is legendary. But even that might just be a touch beyond us. The resource implications are frightening. If the noble Earl pauses to think about it, and takes in exactly what I have said in my response, I am sure that he will find it within himself to agree that this is an effective, pragmatic and fair way to deal with such matters. I hope, therefore, that he will withdraw amendment. I should add that I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving notice of the fact that he does not intend to move the other two amendments in this group; namely, Amendments Nos. 141A and 141B.

Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I am very glad to hear of the humane and sensible practice that the Minister described as being in operation. What occurs to me, however, is that if that system is in operation, what do the Government have to lose by accepting the amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Russell? I may have missed the point, but the noble Earl seems to be advancing an argument that really makes itself. If there is to be a deleterious consequence flowing from late reaction to a determination, that consequence should at least flow from the date of notification rather than the date of posting of the notification.

Earl Russell: I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, for his support. I reassure the Minister that I was not intending to press the amendment at this time of night. However, I might perhaps draw his attention to Section 94(3) of the 1999 Act to which he refers. It states:
	"For the purposes of this part, a claim for asylum is determined at the end of such period beginning . . . on the day on which the Secretary of State notifies the claimant of his decision of the claim".
	I think that, in normal English, that means the day on the head of the Secretary of State's letter.
	Whatever ought to happen, it is clear that the system is not working at the moment. Perhaps the Minister can familiarise himself with the correspondence that I have been having in the past few weeks with his predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and with the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, about malfunctions in the issue of the form NASS 35, which is the NASS sign-off to say how much benefit the applicant has had from NASS which is used by Social Security as a means of triggering the claim. It does not start to pay until it has the NASS 35. This form very often fails to get issued. If the Minister wants further examples of that, I am sure that Mr John Wheatley of the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux will be very happy to supply it to him in considerable detail.
	So before I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, may I just ask the Minister not to assume that everything is all right as it is now?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I think that we all appreciate that we do not live in a world of absolute perfection. However, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, gave helpful support to the noble Earl, I should like to try to put this point on the record so that it is understood. The status quo is precisely what the noble Earl is seeking to achieve; there is no difference. In our view, the amendment is entirely unnecessary. A person is "notified" when he or she receives the notification. That is what the words mean. So it is the moment that the notification is received that they are "notified", not when the notification is posted, which is the point on which the noble Earl relied in his argument, in which he was supported by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden. I hope that that clarification, on the record, will enable the noble Earl to withdraw his amendment with considerable satisfaction. It has enabled us to spell out precisely what is meant by the law.

Earl Russell: The Minister describes utopia very well. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 141:
	Page 20, line 24, leave out "finally determined" and insert "disposed of"

Lord Bassam of Brighton: This technical amendment corrects a drafting error. Section 94(4) of the 1999 Act contains the definition of when an appeal is considered to have been "disposed of". The amendment will ensure that this very worthwhile and wholly sensible definition applies. In the new Section 94(3) inserted by Clause 38(4), there was an error in that we were referring to "finally determined". We have taken great pains to ensure that this amendment wholly corrects that error and puts it right. I beg to move.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: If it is not asking too much of the Minister, will he explain what is the difference between "finally determined" and "disposed of"?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am a history graduate, not an English graduate. However, as I hear the words, I suppose that they mean pretty much the same thing. It is our intention to ensure clarity. We consider that the term "disposed of" is more correct. I have no doubt that if the noble Lord refers to Fowler's Modern English Usage, he will find that that is the case.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I am grateful for that attempt at an explanation. During the previous Parliament I wrote to the Home Office 40 times more often than I had done before due to the reluctance of the Home Office to communicate with my constituents. I remember case after case where the final determination of an appeal never reached the constituent. I can also think of cases where, although the appeal had been disposed of, the Home Office was blissfully ignorant of that. In neither case did it appear to me that the word "finality" had any rationale in terms of the course of events.

Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I hope that I may in 30 seconds suggest an answer which the Minister might give. Let us suppose that an appeal is withdrawn. It is finally disposed of but it is not determined as it has not been the subject of adjudication. Might that possibly be the answer?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: That seems most sensible. I am always in the hands of lawyers in your Lordships' House.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 141A and 141B not moved.]
	Clause 38, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 39 [Section 38: supplemental]:

Baroness Greengross: moved Amendment No. 141C:
	Page 21, line 34, at end insert—
	"( ) The following shall be inserted into section 97(4) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (support–supplemental)—
	"(c) must provide an asylum seeker who is over the age of 60 with regular additional cash payments equivalent in proportion to the pensioner premiums provided to other pensioners in the United Kingdom.""

Baroness Greengross: Amendment No. 141C is a probing amendment to test the principle on which the Government have decided on the level of support for older asylum seekers. Perhaps it is an oversight or I have misunderstood the Bill's provisions, but older asylum seekers appear to be treated in the same way as younger people.
	I apologise to the Committee for not having been able to take part in the Bill's Second Reading as fully as I would have liked. I am, however, a member of Sub-Committee F of the European Union Select Committee which is currently considering these very issues as part of its ongoing inquiry into a common EU policy on illegal immigration.
	Put simply, my amendment would give extra financial support to older asylum seekers, which the Refugee Council and Oxfam recommend in their recently published excellent report on poverty and asylum. It provides a sad picture of the poverty suffered by many older asylum seekers at a level not experienced by older UK residents who benefit over and above income support.
	The logic for this is taken from the Government's rules on support for our own citizens. As the Committee will know, our own older people now receive a much more generous level of support than people aged under 60. They always received a premium on supplementary benefit and income support. Now the premium on the normal income support level of £53.95 per week has risen to £44.20 per week, making a total of £98.15 for a single person aged over 60. That is a substantial premium for those on what is currently called the minimum income guarantee.
	That higher level of support is partly to reflect the extra needs of and costs for our older people. Other Members of the Committee have mentioned the need for clothes in cold weather, for example. Does the Minister think that older asylum seekers do not have those extra needs?
	My amendment does not in fact suggest that older asylum seekers should get the same pensioner premium as our own citizens: £44.20 per week. Rather, I suggest that they should get the same proportion extra—it is almost double—as our own citizens receive. That would mean that older asylum seekers would receive an additional £30 or so on top of the flat rate weekly amount of £37.77 which asylum seekers will receive.
	In 2001, around 700 asylum seekers aged over 60 sought asylum in this country. We are not talking about great numbers. I beg to move.

Earl Russell: My Lords, we on these Benches warmly support the amendment. I shall make two points in support of it. First, many asylum seekers concerned come from communities that have a much stronger tradition of family support for the old than we have in this country. For those people, being dispersed away from those communities will be a correspondingly greater wrench than it would be for many British people in the same situation. Secondly, the Minister argued earlier this evening that the package of support available for asylum seekers is broadly equivalent to income support. If the amendment is not agreed to, that argument of the Minister's must be untenable.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: The Government certainly understand the concerns put forward by the noble Baroness, who has a long record of work in arguing cases such as this. Of course, I would also expect the generosity of spirit shown by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in expressing his support. However, the Government cannot accept the amendment.
	It is worth reminding the Committee that the NASS dispersal scheme was set up to be separate from the main benefits system. It is important that that distinction is maintained. Support provided to those with asylum seeker status is different and separate from that provided to other residents. It is not intended exactly to replicate the social security system but to provide a means of short-term support aimed at providing, as necessary, a roof over the heads of destitute asylum seekers and the basic wherewithal to meet their essential living needs. Accordingly, the Government cannot accept that supplementary payments are necessary for asylum seekers who are over 60 years old.
	We understand the argument but we do not believe that it is an acceptable approach. We have set out our rationale for the current scheme. It has been argued in this Chamber this evening and explained with great clarity. While we understand the points made, I am afraid that we do not find the amendment acceptable. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw it.

Baroness Greengross: I thank the Minister for that reply but I am obviously disappointed. I also thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for his support. I hope that perhaps at a later stage the Government will reconsider the matter. It is important that the needs of older asylum seekers are considered very carefully. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 39 agreed to.
	Clauses 40 and 41 agreed to.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.
	House adjourned at ten minutes before eleven o'clock.